13248 Rules and Regulations s1

192-113

Part III gas distribution pipelines. To fur- gov, under “Search Documents” ther minimize regulatory burdens, select “Pipeline and Hazardous Department of Transportation the rule establishes simpler require- Materials Safety Administration. ments for master meter and small ” Pipeline and Hazardous Materi- liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) op- Next, select “Notices,” and then als Safety Administration erators, reflecting the relatively click “Submit.” Select this rule- lower risk of these small pipelines. making by clicking on the docket 49 CFR Part 192 In accordance with Federal number listed above. Submit your law, the rule also requires operators comment by clicking the yellow Pipeline Safety: Integrity Man- to install excess flow valves on bubble in the right column then fol- agement Program for Gas Distri- new and replaced residential ser- lowing the instructions. bution Pipelines; Final Rule vice lines, subject to feasibility cri- Identify docket number PHM- teria outlined in the rule. SA-RSPA-2004-19854 at the be- DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- This final rule addresses statu- ginning of your comments. For PORTATION tory mandates and recommenda- comments by mail, please provide tions from the DOT's Office of the two copies. To receive PHMSA's Pipeline and Hazardous Materi- Inspector General (OIG) and stake- confirmation receipt, include a self- als Safety Administration holder groups. addressed stamped postcard. Inter- net users may access all comments 49 CFR Part 192 DATES: Effective Date: This Final at http://www.regulations.gov, by Rule takes effect February 2, 2010. following the steps above. [Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA- Comment Date: Interested per- 2004-19854; Amdt. 192-113] sons are invited to submit comment Note: PHMSA will post all on the provisions for reporting fail- comments without changes or edits RIN 2137-AE15 ures of compression couplings by to http://www.regulations.gov in- January 4, 2010. At the end of the cluding any personal information Pipeline Safety: Integrity Man- comment period, we will publish a provided. agement Program for Gas Distri- document modifying these provi- bution Pipelines sions or a document stating that the FOR FURTHER INFORMA- provisions will remain unchanged. TION CONTACT: Mike Israni by AGENCY: Pipeline and Haz- phone at (202) 366-4571 or by e- ardous Materials Safety Adminis- ADDRESSES: Comments limited mail at [email protected]. tration (PHMSA), DOT. to the provisions on reporting failures of mechanical couplings SUPPLEMENTARY INFOR- ACTION: Final rule. should reference Docket No. PHM- MATION: SA-RSPA-2004-19854 and may be submitted in the following ways: I. Background SUMMARY: PHMSA is amend-  E-Gov Web site: ing the Federal Pipeline Safety http://www.regulations.gov. This Existing integrity management Regulations to require operators of site allows the public to enter com- regulations cover operators of haz- gas distribution pipelines to devel- ments on any Federal Register no- ardous liquid pipelines (49 CFR op and implement integrity man- tice issued by any agency. 195.452, published at 65 FR 75378 agement (IM) programs. The pur-  Fax: 1-202-493-2251. and 67 FR 2136) and gas transmis- pose of these programs is to en-  Mail: DOT Docket Opera- sion pipelines (49 CFR 192, Sub- hance safety by identifying and re- tions Facility (M-30), U.S. Depart- part O, published at 68 FR 69778). ducing pipeline integrity risks. The ment of Transportation, West These regulations require that oper- IM programs required by this rule Building, 1200 New Jersey Av- ators of these pipelines develop and are similar to those required for gas enue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. follow individualized integrity transmission pipelines, but tailored  Hand Delivery: DOT Docket management (IM) programs, in ad- to reflect the differences in and Operations Facility, U.S. Depart- dition to PHMSA's core pipeline among distribution pipelines. ment of Transportation, West safety regulations. The IM ap- Based on the required risk assess- Building, Room W12-140, 1200 proach was designed to promote ments and enhanced controls, the New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washing- continuous improvement in pipe- rule also allows for risk-based ad- ton, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and line safety by requiring operators to justment of prescribed intervals for 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, identify and invest in risk control leak detection surveys and other except Federal holidays. measures beyond core regulatory fixed-interval requirements in the Instructions: In the E-Gov requirements. agency's existing regulations for Web site: http://www.regulations.-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 1/42 192-113 192-113

PHMSA published a Notice of other purposes where a low level of jected to those provisions as being Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on risk makes a longer interval accept- beyond what stakeholder groups June 25, 2008, (73 FR 36015) to able. Applying those resources to had suggested. extend its integrity management other safety tasks to address higher The anonymous commenter approach to the largest segment of risks can result in an overall im- suggested that the proposed rule is the Nation's pipeline network–the provement in safety. not needed and noted that accidents gas distribution pipelines that di- In addition, the proposed rule happen. One operator suggested rectly serve homes, schools, busi- would have required distribution that this entire proposal is unneces- nesses, and other natural gas con- pipeline operators to install excess sary, since existing rules are ade- sumers. Significant differences be- flow valves (EFV) in certain new quate to assure safety. One operator tween gas distribution pipelines and replaced residential service also opposed the proposed rule, and gas transmission or hazardous lines. This provision also imple- noting that system differences liquid pipelines made it impractical mented a requirement in the 2006 mean that the concepts used on to apply the existing regulations to PIPES Act. transmission lines do not apply to distribution pipelines. The pro- distribution and suggesting that the posed rule incorporated the same II. Comments on the NPRM burden of implementing integrity basic principles as current integrity management for distribution pipe- management regulations but with a PHMSA received 143 letters lines would cause more harm than slightly different approach to ac- commenting on the proposed rule. good. One state pipeline safety reg- commodate those differences. Of these: ulatory agency also opposed the PHMSA worked with a number of  12 were from associations. proposed rule, noting that the exist- multi-stakeholder groups to help This includes national and regional ing body of regulations has resulted determine the best way to apply in- associations of gas distribution in a very low number of deaths an- tegrity management principles to pipeline operators and the National nually from distribution pipeline distribution pipelines before pub- Association of Pipeline Safety Rep- accidents and suggesting that the lishing the NPRM. The work and resentatives (NAPSR), the Associa- new requirements would therefore conclusions of the stakeholder tion of State Pipeline Safety Regu- not be cost-beneficial. The State groups are described in the NPRM. lators. agency also noted that the new rule As described in the NPRM, the  62 were from municipal dis- will impose additional work on al- proposal was responsive to recom- tribution pipeline operators. ready- mendations from DOT's Inspector 45 were from non-municipal burdened State pipeline safety reg- General and the National Trans- local distribution pipeline opera- ulators. portation Safety Board. It also pro- tors. PHMSA has considered these posed to implement a requirement  15 were from State pipeline comments but still considers it nec- in the Pipeline Inspection, Protec- safety agencies. essary to issue a rule requiring in- tion, Enforcement and Safety Act  5 were from companies sup- tegrity management for distribution (PIPES Act) of 2006 that integrity plying products and services to the pipelines. While accidents may management requirements be es- industry. continue to occur, that does not tablished for distribution pipelines.  1 was from a citizens' group. mean that reasonable actions The proposed rule also includ-  1 was from the Plastic Pipe should not be taken to avoid those ed a provision to allow distribution Database Committee (PPDC). accidents that could be prevented. pipeline operators to apply for ap-  1 was from the Gas Piping PHMSA concludes that the flexi- proval from their safety regulators Technology Committee (GPTC). bility inherent in the rule, as modi- to adjust the intervals at which they  1 was from an anonymous fied in response to other comments perform specific safety require- commenter. (described below), adequately ad- ments that current regulations re- dresses concerns based on differ- quire to be performed at specified General Comments ences among distribution pipelines. intervals. This provision recog- PHMSA also concludes that the nized the basic principle underlying Virtually all comment letters changes made in response to other integrity management–that opera- supported the proposed rule, with comments will reduce implementa- tors should identify and understand notable exceptions for some of its tion costs and that the rule will be the threats to their pipelines and ap- provisions. The vast majority of cost-beneficial. PHMSA is working ply their safety resources commen- commenters commended PHMSA with State pipeline safety agencies surate with the importance of each for the inclusive way in which the to increase the level of Federal fi- threat. Operators devote resources background for the proposed rule nancial support provided for State to comply with the core pipeline was developed. Most commenters programs. PHMSA notes that the safety regulations. These safety re- who took exception to particular vast majority of distribution pipe- sources can be made available for provisions in the proposed rule ob- line operators and State regulators,

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 2/42 192-113 192-113 and the associations that represent the proposed rule or to make clear A discussion of each comment them, supported the proposed rule. the actions required to comply. topic and PHMSA's response to The existing rules help assure an These comment topics are: each follows: admirable safety level. Still, signif- Comment Topic 1: Plastic pipe icant accidents continue to occur, if Comment Topic 1 Plastic Pipe Re- reporting. infrequently. Experience has shown porting. Commenters universally re- that incidents are most often caused Comment Topic 2 Performance jected the proposal to require re- by a combination of circumstances. Through People. porting of all plastic pipe failures. These circumstances represent Comment Topic 3 “Damage” Defi- Commenters noted that the plastic risks for the pipeline involved, but nition. pipe data committee (PPDC) in- may not affect other pipelines. It is Comment Topic 4 Implementation cludes representatives of all stake- thus not practical to create addi- Time. holder groups and has several years tional prescriptive requirements to Comment Topic 5 Rule Structure of data for identifying trends that address these pipeline-specific and Implementation. would be lost if PPDC were no risks. This rule (as the integrity Comment Topic 6 Alternative In- longer used. Commenters believe management requirements for other tervals. PPDC has done an excellent job of types of pipelines that preceded it) Comment Topic 7 IM Require- collecting and analyzing operating requires that operators evaluate ments for Master Meter and experience with plastic pipe. Ac- their pipelines to identify the risks LPG Operators. cording to commenters, operators important to their circumstances Comment Topic 8 Transmission of approximately 75 percent of in- and take appropriate actions to ad- Lines Operated by Distribution stalled plastic pipe mileage volun- dress those risks. Operators. tarily provide information to This IM regulation for distri- Comment Topic 9 Part 192–Re- PPDC. While this is less than the bution operators requires an opera- quirement References. 100 percent participation that tor to conduct a comprehensive Comment Topic 10 Hazardous would result from a mandatory re- evaluation of its system to better Leak Definition. porting requirement, commenters identify threats to the system, to Comment Topic 11 Required Doc- maintained this is sufficient data to implement additional measures to umentation. draw statistically significant con- help prevent accidents from occur- Comment Topic 12 Excess flow clusions about the performance of ring and to mitigate the conse- valves. all plastic pipe. quences if an accident does occur. Comment Topic 13 Guidance. Many commenters thought IM provides for a more systematic Comment Topic 14 Leak monitor- PHMSA's concern that information and comprehensive approach to ing. from PPDC is not available to the preventing failures. Accordingly, Comment Topic 15 State authority. entire industry is unjustified. These PHMSA considers this the most ef- Comment Topic 16 IM program commenters noted that PPDC is- fective means to effect further re- evaluation and improvement. sues summary reports, that trade ductions in the number of pipeline Comment Topic 17 Permanent associations (who participate in incidents. The regulatory analysis marking of plastic pipe. PPDC) provide information to their supporting this rule considers the Comment Topic 18 Continuing sur- members, and that PHMSA has is- improvement in safety that is ex- veillance. sued advisory bulletins concerning pected to result and explicitly rec- Comment Topic 19 Information significant PPDC conclusions. ognizes the current low frequency gathering. Many operators commented that of serious accidents. Comment Topic 20 Knowledge of they would not have the time or re- pipeline. sources to review detailed failure Specific Comments Comment Topic 21 Threat identifi- information on their own, and that cation. the information currently provided There was a broad consensus Comment Topic 22 Risk assess- by the trade associations and PHM- among commenters that several ments. SA advisories is useful to them. provisions in the proposed rule Comment Topic 23 Performance Some commenters suggested should be deleted or significantly measures. that the rule require operators to modified. In most cases, the con- Comment Topic 24 Regulatory make use of this information. AGA sensus included parties from “com- analysis. and one operator suggested that the mercial” and municipal operators Comment Topic 25 IM for new requirement to report plastic pipe (and their associations) and State pipelines. failures be replaced with a require- regulators. Many additional com- Comment Topic 26 Annual report ment that operators consider indus- ments were made, often suggesting form. try and government advisories in specific changes needed to improve evaluating plastic pipe performance as part of their DIMP programs.

They believe this would be more of a number of incidents on distri- operators should plan to report the effective in addressing PHMSA's bution pipelines in recent years and information described in the 60-day underlying concern of operators not the subject of several PHMSA ad- notice. considering relevant information visories. Additional data concern- Comment Topic 2: Perfor- than would mandatory reporting. ing coupling failures is needed to mance through people. All who addressed this subject enable PHMSA to determine if ad- Commenters opposed the per- agreed that replacing the current ditional requirements are needed to formance through people (PTP) el- system with mandatory reporting of help prevent future incidents from ement and the proposed require- all failures would be unreasonably coupling failure. Accordingly, ment that each IM plan include a burdensome and would not im- PHMSA has retained the included section entitled “Assuring Individ- prove knowledge or safety. PPDC element of reporting of coupling ual Performance.” Commenters commented that mandatory report- failures in this final rule. maintained that the proposed re- ing is not needed as they have the The final rule provision is not quirement is vague and likely unnecessary structure and participa- limited to couplings used on plastic enforceable and that it creates con- tion. PPDC suggested that it would pipe. PHMSA understands that the fusion and diminishes the focus on take years to collect enough data to principal use for couplings in dis- the core issues of importance to duplicate the information they al- tribution pipeline systems is to con- IM. They pointed out, as did PHM- ready have on hand. nect plastic pipe or to connect plas- SA in the NPRM's preamble, that PHMSA response: PHMSA is tic pipe to metal pipe (including other regulations currently address persuaded that the data collection risers, etc.). PHMSA recognizes the impact of people on pipeline burden is not warranted at this time that it is possible for mechanical safety. These regulations include given the current system of PPDC couplings to be used to connect Operator Qualification, Drug and analysis of plastic pipe failure metal pipe to metal pipe, and that Alcohol requirements, Damage trends and dissemination of lessons reporting of failures involving such Prevention, and Public Awareness. learned from this analysis via connections would not have been Commenters noted that the pro- PPDC reports and trade association encompassed by the proposed re- posed PTP requirement is unclear communications and through our quirements related to plastic pipe in about what, if any, additional ac- advisories. The final rule does not the NPRM. PHMSA believes that tions are expected, and that having include the requirement to report use of couplings in applications to refer to actions taken under these all plastic pipe failures. that do not involve plastic pipe is other requirements in an IM plan The proposed requirement in- rare. Nevertheless, PHMSA invites creates an unnecessary additional cluded reporting failures of cou- public comment on the extension paperwork burden. NAPSR, Amer- plings used with plastic pipe. of this proposed requirement to in- ican Public Gas Association PHMSA has retained this require- clude reporting of failure of cou- (APGA), GPTC, and operators sug- ment for compression couplings. plings used in metal pipe. Com- gested that PHMSA should not pre- This final rule includes a requirements should be submitted by Jan- sume that action is required by all ment that operators report failures uary 4, 2010. Based on the com- operators to address the threat of of compression coupling as part of ments we receive, we will consider inappropriate operation. These their annual reports. This provision modifying the provision. At the end commenters noted that studies, in- was an included part of proposed of the comment period, we will ei- cluding those conducted by the §192.1009, which would have re- ther issue a modification or a notice American Gas Foundation (AGF) quired reporting of “each material stating that the section stands as and Allegro and referred to in the failure of plastic pipe (including written. preamble of the NPRM, have fittings, couplings, valves and An operator is not required to shown that this threat poses a very joints)” (emphasis added). As de- collect coupling failure information small risk; PHMSA data shows it scribed above, PHMSA has deleted until January 1, 2010. We expect to to be the cause of only 3% of all from the final rule the requirement issue any modifications to this sec- leaks. to report plastic pipe failures, since tion prior to that date. If we are de- PHMSA response: PHMSA it was persuaded by the public layed in issuing a modification, we has not included PTP requirements comments that PPDC is adequately will then consider further delaying in the final rule. PHMSA agrees collecting and analyzing this data the compliance date for section the provision is largely duplicative and disseminating the results of its 192.1009. PHMSA is issuing, in of other existing regulations. Nev- analysis broadly. PPDC does not, conjunction with this final rule, a ertheless, the final rule still requires however, collect data on couplings 60-day notice regarding amend- that operators evaluate all threats used to join plastic pipe, since the ments to the Annual Report form, applicable to their pipeline sys- body of most couplings is metal. which includes changes related to tems. Thus, operators for which in- Coupling failure has been the cause this reporting requirement. Until appropriate operation is a threat of PHMSA announces a modification,

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 4/42 192-113 192-113 concern will be required to address be included. Others noted that dis- vide clarity; however, it would not that threat. covery of latent damage, that may allow operators and PHMSA to Comment Topic 3: “Damage” have occurred years earlier, is not a monitor the effectiveness of dam- definition. measure of the current effective- age prevention measures. In the NPRM, PHMSA pro- ness of a damage prevention or in- Pipeline operators, as well as posed to add a new definition for tegrity management program. In- operators of all underground facili- “damage” applicable to the IM dustry expressed concern about the ties, need to evaluate the effective- subpart. The proposed definition additional recordkeeping burden ness of damage prevention efforts. associated with capturing data on The Common Ground Alliance was any impact or exposure re- “ non-leak damages. (CGA) is a national group involv- sulting in the repair or replacement Two operators suggested that ing operators of all types of under- of an underground facility, related ground facilities, as well as repre- appurtenance, or materials support- the term “exposure” be eliminated from the proposed definition of sentatives of excavators and others ing the pipeline. This term is be- ” damage (or excavation damage) be- who play a part in preventing dam- ing defined because of a provision cause it is unclear what this term age to underground facilities. CGA in the proposed rule that would re- adds. They question, for example, has established the Damage Infor- quire reporting the number of exca- whether washouts would be includ- mation Reporting Tool (DIRT) to vation “damages” as a perfor- ed. collect information submitted vol- mance measure. Industry stake- PHMSA response: PHMSA untarily concerning damage to un- holders universally commented that agrees that excavation damage is of derground facilities. Some pipeline the definition of “damage” should principal concern and is the term operators participate in DIRT. be limited to excavation damage that should be defined. PHMSA DIRT defines damage based on and to damage that causes loss of does not agree, however, that only whether repair or replacement of an gas (immediate leaks). GPTC excavation damage that results in a underground facility is required. would further limit the definition to leak is of concern. This is very similar to the defini- “known” excavation damage. Mitigating the threat of exca- tion proposed in the NPRM, which States and NAPSR suggested vation damage means implement- also relied on the need to repair or defining excavation damage vs. ing or continuing actions that will replace as the defining criterion. damage, but did not suggest limit- minimize the likelihood that exca- PHMSA has modified the defini- ing damage of interest to damage vation near the pipeline will cause tion in the final rule to match more causing leaks. One operator sug- damage. Operators must seek to closely the language used in the gested that the definition should prevent excavation “hits” of the DIRT definition of excavation also include instances in which pipeline, whether a hit results in damage. PHMSA has omitted the damaged pipe is retired in place be- leakage or not (e.g., a glancing phrase “of exposure” used in the cause damaged pipe and appurte- blow or insufficient force to cause DIRT definition, since this refers to nances are not always repaired or a leak). That a hit occurs, regard- damage from causes other than ex- removed; the operator suggested less of whether it causes leakage, is cavation (e.g., washout). The that the definition should focus on an indication that the actions in- changes in the definition in the fi- the unplanned nature of the repair, tended to prevent such an occur- nal rule will provide the needed removal or retirement. rence have failed. Operators cannot clarity and will also facilitate po- The commenters pointed out adequately evaluate the effective- tential comparison of distribution that operators report data regarding ness of their mitigative actions for pipeline damage prevention perfor- leaks in their annual reports but not this threat, and PHMSA cannot mance to that of other underground other damage. Operators are not evaluate the effectiveness of these facilities for which CGA collects now required to collect data on actions on a national level, if non- data. This change also obviates the damages that do not result in leaks. leak events are excluded. Assuring need to include retirement in the Commenters contended that ex- continuity with past data is less im- definition because retirement of an tending the definition of damage to portant than assuring that the data active pipeline will usually involve encompass situations that do not being collected appropriately ad- replacement or bypass. Damage to cause leaks will cause loss of conti- dresses the event of concern. the protective coating or to the ca- nuity with previous data and may At the same time, PHMSA is thodic protection that requires re- cause confusion. Some noted that sympathetic to the need to have pair/replacement is damage of con- statistically better conclusions can well-defined criteria identifying cern in evaluating the effectiveness be drawn if such continuity is what damage is to be included in of damage prevention measures; maintained. Some commenters performance monitoring and under- therefore, the definition in the final asked whether coating damage or stands that a definition based on rule clarifies that damage necessi- damage to anodes/test wires would whether a leak occurred would pro- tating repair to coating or to ca-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 5/42 192-113 192-113 thodic protection constitutes exca- plement its provisions. It stated that Comment Topic 5: Rule struc- vation damage. the rule lacks the clarity needed to ture and implementation. Comment Topic 4: Implemen- know what must be done. Several commenters addressed tation time. PHMSA response: PHMSA specific issues associated with the Many industry commenters has deleted the term “fully” from structure of the rule and language objected to the requirement that IM the final rule. PHMSA has retained in proposed §192.1005 addressing plans be “fully implemented” with- the 18-month requirement. PHM- what gas distribution operators in 18 months. They suggested that SA recognizes that implementing must do to implement this new sub- “fully” be deleted. IM plans inher- IM plans involves learning and re- part. A consultant and GPTC both ently involve learning more about vision but does not agree that this suggested that section headers the pipeline systems and associated means it is necessary to stretch out within the rule not be written as risks, and it is not clear when they the implementation deadline. It is questions because questions are inherently longer than classic titles, will be “fully” implemented. important to implement–to begin the iterative learning process–as and make the rule harder to use. A few operators suggested we AGA and several distribution clarify what is meant by “imple- soon as practical. With “fully” being deleted, as noted above, it is operators objected to the proposed ment. They noted that it was not ” clear that implementation is not ex- requirement that procedures de- clear if this meant that all databases pected to mean that all problems scribe the “processes” for develop- must be fully populated and that, if have been identified and resolved. ing, implementing and periodically so, it cannot be accomplished in 18 PHMSA notes that 18 months is improving IM elements. The Iowa months. Many industry com- consistent with the period suggest- Utilities Board (Iowa) also suggest- menters also objected to the pro- ed by many commenters for devel- ed that this provision be modified posed requirement that implemen- oping IM programs and, with dele- to remove the reference to process- tation occur within 18 months. tion of the concept of “fully imple- es. The commenters noted that the They argued that many operators term is unclear and could be inter- ment, believes this period is still will need to make changes in how ” preted to require elaborate algo- they collect and manage data, inappropriate. rithms. They noted that the stake- cluding the need to purchase new AGA's comment is incorrect. holders concluded that major tech- computers and develop new data- Congress allowed 10 years for gas nical changes are not needed, bases or make other IT changes, transmission operators to complete which they interpret to mean that and that these changes take time. baseline assessments (i.e., physical inspection) of the portions of their major “processes” are not required Industry also suggested that it is to implement distribution IM. They not practical to expect that plans pipelines in high consequence areas.1 The proposed rule did not in- believe that deleting the term does will be implemented, databases not affect the meaning of the pro- will be fully populated, etc., for all clude a provision for distribution pipeline operators to conduct such posed requirement. portions of complex distribution PHMSA response: The struc- systems in a short period of time. assessments. Transmission pipeline operators were required to develop ture of the regulation as question AGA noted that Congress allowed and answer is part of the long-s- 10 years for full implementation of and implement IM plans in one 2 tanding Government-wide require- gas transmission IM. Commenters year. varied in their suggestions for a dif- PHMSA disagrees with the ment to write regulations in “plain ferent implementation deadline. comment that the rule is ambigu- English.” PHMSA has been consis- Many suggested 24 months, with ous. This comment was not echoed tently using this format in its pipe- one operator clarifying that after by the many other operators or the line rulemakings for some time. such a period operators should be trade associations that submitted PHMSA has revised §192.1005(b) required to have developed and im- comments. Some commenters iden- to delete the reference to “process- plemented a “framework” that will tified specific areas where they be- es.” further develop over time. One op- lieved further clarity was needed Comment Topic 6: Alternative erator suggested one year to devel- and PHMSA has made changes intervals. op plans/programs and another year where appropriate, as described be- Commenters generally favored to implement. Others suggested low. As a result, PHMSA con- the proposed requirement that variations on this approach, with cludes that the actions required to would allow operators to propose 1\1/2\ years allowed either for de- implement the final rule are clear. alternative intervals for part 192 re- velopment or implementation. quirements. There were a number One operator commented that 1 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of comments related to this provi- the proposed rule was too ambigu- of 2002, Section 14. sion and its implementation. ous as to the actions required to im- 2 49 Code of Federal Regulations, a. Concept. Section 192.907.

AGA, GPTC, and many gas should be per State procedures, “streamlined” process on state ac- distribution operators supported the with flexibility provided for each tions. proposal. They noted that shifting State to consider its particular cir- c. Approving agency. of resources often is necessary to cumstances. Iowa also noted that NAPSR, States, and some in- assure safety efficiently. They be- such guidance is not needed. dustry commenters suggested that lieve that the proposed rule would The Massachusetts Department the rule be clarified that approval not be cost-beneficial unless it al- of Public Utilities suggested that a must be requested from the regula- lowed for such adjustments. They process needs to be defined for ap- tory authority exercising jurisdic- noted that risk-based intervals are peal of decisions related to propos- tion. They considered the language more effective and efficient and als for alternative intervals. They in the proposed rule vague as to can result in improved safety and believe that such a process should whether a state or PHMSA was the reduced costs. In response to a pre- be consistent with that for waivers approving agency, or whether an amble question concerning advan- under 49 U.S.C. 60118. operator could apply to either. One tages and disadvantages of allow- PHMSA response: State au- operator suggested that approval ing operators to adjust required in- thority and regulatory structures should be by States. tervals, some operators commented differ, and some state regulators PHMSA response: PHMSA that the engineering work needed may need to seek additional author- has always intended that the alter- to establish new intervals and the ity (from their state government) to native interval provision in this rule need for State review and under- implement this provision. States would allow the regulatory authori- standing of the basis were disad- will implement this provision under ty exercising jurisdiction over the vantages of PHMSA's proposal. individual state statutory authority operator of the distribution pipeline PHMSA response: This provi- in accordance with the applicable to act on a proposal to use alterna- sion is intended to facilitate re- certification under 49 U.S.C. 60105 tive intervals. We have clarified the alignment of safety resources, of this title or agreement under sec- language in the final rule to remove where appropriate, to promote effi- tion 60106. PHMSA believes most any implication that an operator ciency without compromising safe- states will be able to establish pro- may seek approval from either ty. Because operators are in the cedures under existing authority PHMSA or a state. Most distribu- best position to understand the and may already have procedures tion pipelines are regulated by state risks on their system, and where re- that can be used for this purpose. agencies and approval of changes sources should be effectively ap- PHMSA agrees with NAPSR proposed by those operators will be plied, this provision is designed to that states need flexibility in imple- by the state. give operators that latitude to effec- menting this provision. PHMSA d. Evaluation of proposals. tively manage their systems. Ap- will develop criteria for evaluating A number of commenters ad- proval from regulators is necessary operator's alternative interval pro- dressed the proposed requirement to prevent the abuse of this provi- posal in the states where PHMSA that operators proposing alternative sion. Operators are not required to exercises enforcement authority intervals demonstrate that a re- apply for adjusted intervals. If the over distribution pipelines. States duced frequency will not signifi- burden of engineering work and may be able to use those criteria cantly increase risk. NAPSR pro- seeking State review are too bur- where they exercise enforcement posed that operators should be re- densome, the operator may contin- authority. Factors important to each quired to demonstrate enhanced ue to use the intervals in the regula- regulatory authority's consideration system safety or, at minimum, that tions. of proposed changes to intervals operation would be at least as safe b. Process. for safety actions are also likely to under the proposed alternative. AGA, GPTC, and several op- differ. These differences make it Iowa suggested a requirement for a erators suggested that it will be im- impractical to develop a common substantially equal or superior level portant for PHMSA to provide “template” process. of safety. One operator requested guidance to the States for imple- PHMSA agrees that the regula- that the meaning of a significant in- menting alternative intervals. One tory authority responsible for re- crease in risk be clarified by exam- operator suggested a federal “tem- viewing the request should institute ple, noting that the proposed lan- plate” to be used by the States. appropriate administrative proce- guage is unclear. Another suggest- Commenters suggested that consis- dures for processing requests for ed that the rule should not require a tency would be particularly impor- alternative intervals, to include a proposal for an alternative interval tant for large companies that oper- process for appealing a decision. to include a no- ate pipelines in multiple states. One States will establish their own pro- significant-risk demonstration; the commenter stated the process cedures for review, and it is not ap- commenter noted that the core should be “streamlined.” NAPSR, propriate for PHMSA to impose a pipeline safety regulations are not however, asserted that approval risk based and suggested that risk

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 7/42 192-113 192-113 must be considered on an overall duce a level of safety that is equal mits) are a common regulatory basis vs. change-by-change. or improved, on an overall basis, tool. PHMSA permits pipeline op- Although commenters general- and that states will be reasonable in erators to seek a special permit3 and ly supported consistency between judging the adequacy of proposed considers such requests on their regulatory authorities, commenters changes. merits. Although required periodic also suggested that there is no sin- PHMSA also agrees that it is actions address threats of concern gle basis for judging the adequacy unnecessary and likely impractical and a reduction in the periodicity of of the engineering basis for a pro- to establish specific criteria for ap- those actions inherently involves an posed change, and that it is not proval of proposals for alternative increase in risk, adjustments to the practical or necessary to define re- intervals. Each proposal must be frequency may be warranted when quirements for performance/data considered as a whole and on its safety resources are applied to oth- analysis. One operator suggested own merits. PHMSA has not adopt- er areas of greater concern. Con- that engineering analyses should be ed any of the various alternatives trary to the assertion of the com- judged on whether they are per- suggested by commenters because menter, the use of waivers can re- formed by an engineer, are subject each regulatory authority must ex- sult in a reduction in overall risk to internal review, use good data, ercise its judgment based on the (i.e., improvement in safety), and and include logical analyses and circumstances of each request. regulators must make judgments conclusions. GPTC and one opera- However, PHMSA also recognizes regarding the overall effect of pro- tor suggested that no additional the industry's need for some degree posed changes. analysis should be required if per- of consistency in how proposals are The final rule requires that the formance measures show that risk evaluated. PHMSA intends to work regulatory authority make the deci- mitigation is effective. with the states to help assure a de- sion to approve or disapprove any AGA and several commenters gree of consistency. proposal for alternative intervals. noted that there should be no arbi- PHMSA is not specifying any PHMSA sees no need to add a re- trary limit on the change in interval limit on the intervals that may be quirement that risk analyses used that will be allowed. authorized by the regulatory au- for this purpose be “transparent” to PHMSA response: The rule thority. The regulatory authority regulators because an operator will does not require and PHMSA does will be responsible for determining have to work with the regulatory not contemplate that operators will safe intervals based on the informa- authority to provide enough infor- produce a precise quantitative esti- tion in each operator's proposal. mation to evaluate the requested mate of risk. Accordingly, PHMSA e. Opposition. change. PHMSA also does not recognizes that it is not easy to The Florida Public Service agree that a requirement that each demonstrate that any action pro- Commission opposed the proposal O&M plan contain a summary of duces no significant increase in to allow alternative intervals. The maintenance tasks and periodicity risk. However, regulating safety re- Commission maintained that is needed. Florida, or other states, quires judgments weighing risk waivers (their characterization) in- may require such changes or other versus costs. Judgments of this type herently reduce the established information needed to facilitate are what operators will need to sup- minimum safety level. They be- their inspections as part of their port their proposals and regulators lieve that processing these propos- process of reviewing an operator's will need to consider. PHMSA als will be burdensome and that proposal. does not agree that any reduction in proposed waivers would generally f. Costs and benefits. safety intervals is unacceptable be- not be approved. If the provision is Commenters generally agreed cause the change alone would re- retained, they suggest that the risk that any additional cost to states sult in some increase in risk. In- analysis used as a basis for changes should be minimal. (NAPSR con- stead, the regulatory authority must be transparent to the regula- curred, provided that States are al- needs to make an overall judgment tor. They also suggest that the code lowed to follow their current proce- on the adequacy of proposed be revised to require that opera- dures.) changes. tions and maintenance (O&M) Some comments suggested PHMSA has revised the final plans be required to contain a sum- that the alternative interval provi- rule to require that alternatives, as mary of maintenance tasks and ap- sion will be of limited benefit. One part of the overall IM plan, provide proved periodicity, since it will no operator suggested that the pro- an equal or improved overall level longer be possible to use a common posed requirement is too burden- of safety. This change is intended inspection template if operators are some, involving significant admin- to eliminate any implication that a not required to conduct actions at istrative costs and burden associat- quantitative estimate of risk is re- the same intervals. ed with the need to use risk analy- quired. PHMSA expects that opera- PHMSA response: Waivers tors will be conscientious in from regulatory requirements 3 49 United States Code, Section demonstrating that proposals pro- (sometimes also called special per- 60118.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 8/42 192-113 192-113 ses to justify all changes. Another cial from a safety standpoint. suggested that these smaller opera- noted that there are limitations on Changing this periodic requirement tors should be required to imple- the ability of operators to move re- on a national basis is outside the ment distribution IM, but that the sources from low-risk areas, in- scope of this rulemaking. requirements should be scalable, cluding potential changes to labor h. Some operators suggested recognizing the uncomplicated na- agreements and reassignment of that implementation of alternative ture of their facilities. personnel. They requested that the intervals should be allowed, based APGA agreed that MM/LPG rule recognize these limitations. on risk analysis, without requiring should not be excluded from IM re- Some operators are concerned regulatory approval. They noted quirements. They noted that if that failure of state regulators to ap- that reductions in effort, where mandatory reporting of plastic pipe prove alternative intervals will re- found appropriate, are an integral damages is eliminated (as they sug- sult in implementing additional ac- part of implementing a risk-based gested) the limitation essentially tions to control risks without off- approach. They expressed concern becomes an exclusion from filing setting reductions where risk is that state regulators will be unwill- annual reports. Master meter opera- low, thus increasing total costs. ing to approve reductions from es- tors are currently excluded from PHMSA response: Cost issues tablished intervals which, although annual report requirements. APGA are addressed in the Regulatory Im- not risk-based, are an accepted “would not object” to adding a re- pact Analysis and the Regulatory norm. quirement that master meter and Flexibility Analysis located in the PHMSA response: PHMSA LPG operators evaluate and priori- docket for this rulemaking. does not think regulatory approval tize risk. APGA sees risk ranking This provision imposes no bur- should be eliminated. Regulatory as an integral part of assessing den on operators. Use of alternative oversight is appropriate for changes risks, and believes it will occur intervals is voluntary. Operators that involve reducing safety actions whether or not it is required explic- who conclude that obtaining ap- currently required by regulation. itly in the rule. proval would be too burdensome or PHMSA recognizes that there may NAPSR, Connecticut Depart- that it would be too difficult to re- be some reluctance to approve re- ment of Public Utility Control, align safety resources need not ap- ductions from an established norm; Pennsylvania Public Utility Com- ply. PHMSA therefore sees no however, PHMSA plans to assist mission (PPUC), and several oper- need to revise the rule language to states to determine appropriate ators also commented that recognize that such situations may methods to evaluate proposals. MM/LPG should be subject to IM exist. PHMSA believes that these efforts requirements. They referenced the Operators apply safety re- will serve to address any reluctance conclusion of the stakeholder sources to purposes other than in- on the part of state regulators to groups that distribution IM should spections/actions required periodi- consider alternative intervals. apply to all distribution operators. cally by regulation. Operators will Comment Topic 7: IM require- These commenters did not agree be able to realign those resources ments for master meter and LPG that these operators pose less risk, without regulatory approval, based operators. and maintained that simpler sys- on insights that their risk analyses Many comments addressed the tems will inherently have simpler may supply, providing a means by proposed limitation of require- programs. They also noted that which they can make their safety ments for master meter and LPG some master meter operators are activities more efficient, thereby operators (MM/LPG) and PHM- much larger than the NPRM stated. permitting them to avoid increased SA's request for comment on these PPUC explained that there are two costs. limitations. PHMSA asked whether master meter operators in its state g. An industry consultant sug- the proposed limitations were ap- with more than 6,000 customers. gested that the current requirement propriate, whether further limita- Other commenters noted that there to inspect inside meter sets for at- tions were needed or if these opera- is limited data on these systems, mospheric corrosion at 3-year in- tors should be exempt from IM re- since they do not report incidents, tervals should be changed. He not- quirements. PHMSA also asked and thus the risk may not be small. ed that experience shows these in- whether similar limitations should The Arizona Corporation spections are not needed and it is be afforded to other types of opera- Commission (AZCC) commented more efficient to change the re- tors. that all LPG operators should not quirement on a national basis. a. Proposed limitations are in- be treated like master meters, since PHMSA response: This is an appropriate. some serve small towns, like local example of a required periodic in- Two major trade associations distribution companies and have spection where an operator could addressed the proposed limitations the same limited control over the propose a modification if its analy- for master meter and LPG opera- principal threat of excavation. sis showed devoting resources in tors. (Neither group's members in- AZCC suggested that LPG opera- another area would be more benefi- clude operators of this size.) AGA

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 9/42 192-113 192-113 tors who serve a city, town, or oth- b. MM/LPG should be subject them are very small. Unlike the er municipality within a specified to limited IM requirements. large/small LPG operator distinc- service area as defined by the state The Indiana Utility Regulatory tion, which exists in current regula- agency with authority should meet Commission does not agree that tions, all MM operators are treated the same requirements as other dis- MM/LPG should be subject to the the same, irrespective of size. tribution system operators. AGA same requirements as other opera- Therefore, in this final rule, all MM and NAPSR noted that LPG poses tors. Indiana commented that al- are subject to the limited IM re- unique risks because the product is though there are reasons that mas- quirements. heavier than air, unlike natural gas. ter meter operators could be per- The final rule imposes require- Leaks from these systems will not ceived as posing higher risk (e.g., ments similar to those for other op- safely disperse, as will leaks from lack of expertise/resources, dis- erators but with more limited re- natural gas distribution systems. tributing gas is not primary busi- quirements for documentation, con- PHMSA response: PHMSA is ness, high population density), sistent with how these operators are persuaded that there is a reasonable there has been no record of serious treated in other regulations. They criterion to distinguish between incidents at master meters in Indi- will not be required to report per- LPG operators. PHMSA's concern ana. They stated that these opera- formance measures as they do not with overwhelming small operators tors struggle to comply with exist- file annual reports.4 Although these with limited resources and techni- ing rules and will have limited abil- requirements are similar to those cal expertise is not applicable to ity to analyze risks, even if the applicable to other operators, we LPG systems serving hundreds or computer program APGA is devel- have presented them separately, thousands of customers because oping (Simple, Handy, Risk-based, emphasizing that these programs those operations are more like Integrity Management Program– should reflect the simplicity of the small natural gas distribution sys- SHRIMP) is available. Indiana sug- pipelines. tem operators. PHMSA notes that gested we should either exclude Some comments in response to existing regulations include a crite- master meter operators from this the NPRM and comments made rion to differentiate between large rule or subject them to more limit- during earlier stakeholder discus- and small LPG operators. Section ed requirements and allow them to sions have disagreed with PHM- 191.11 excludes LPG operators spend their limited resources SA's contention that MM/LPG op- serving fewer than 100 customers achieving compliance with existing erators pose less risk. Risk is gen- from a single source from filing an- regulations. erally considered to be the product nual reports. Other LPG operators While not supporting total ex- of the likelihood of adverse events are required to file such reports. clusion, Missouri and New Hamp- and their consequences. Determin- PHMSA has revised the final rule shire state regulators supported ing risk thus requires knowledge of to embrace this same criterion. limited requirements for MM/LPG. how often events occur and the LPG operators serving fewer than AZCC commented that the rule consequences they produce. 100 customers from a single source should be prescriptive and simple MM/LPG operators are not re- are treated like master meter opera- for master meter and small LPG quired to submit written incident tors. Other LPG operators must operators, since these operators reports. They are, however, re- meet the same requirements as nat- have limited capability, can be eas- quired to make telephonic reports.5 ural gas distribution pipeline opera- ily overwhelmed and may, if that Events with serious consequences tors. happens, do nothing. The New (e.g., death or serious injury) are We are also persuaded that Mexico Public Regulation Com- also likely to be reported in local MM/small LPG operators should mission (NMPRC) supported ex- news and thus to come to the atten- not be exempt from ranking risks–a cluding MM/LPG from administration of regulatory authorities. requirement we had applied to all tive requirements of the proposed PHMSA therefore believes it is un- other distribution operators in the rule. likely a large number of significant proposed rule. We believe that Iowa did not take a position on events have occurred on MM/LPG these operators will gain a better limiting requirements; however, systems that are not reflected in in- understanding of their systems by Iowa and a large operator suggest- cident data. That data includes few going through the ranking process. ed that evaluation and prioritization serious incidents on MM/LPG sys- Ranking the risks is almost inher- of risks should not be excluded for tems, supporting PHMSA's con- ent in the other requirements and MM/LPG. They see this as a criti- tention that the risk from these sys- should not impose an additional cal step, and not particularly bur- burden on these operators. PHMSA densome. 4 Operators of LPG systems serving has added an element to rank risks PHMSA response: While more than 100 customers are re- to the requirements applicable to PHMSA agrees that there are some quired to file annual reports. MM/LPG systems. “large” MM operators, most of 5 49 Code of Federal Regulations, section 191.5.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 10/42 192-113 192-113 tems, while not zero, is relatively LPG presents unique hazards; terial, system complexity, geo- low. Indiana's comments about the accordingly, PHMSA believes graphic spread, and other risk fac- dearth of serious accidents in the pipeline safety will be enhanced by tors be considered as well. incident record are consistent with larger LPG operators engaging in APGA suggested that criteria PHMSA's understanding of the risk more robust integrity management defining a small system should not of these systems. activities. As discussed above, include limitation to one pressure c. MM/LPG should not be sub- large LPG operators are subject to district and should not limit the ject to IM requirements. the full IM requirements in the fi- type of appurtenances or equip- The National Propane Gas As- nal rule, including the administra- ment. APGA commented that these sociation (NPGA) suggested that tive requirements. Because of the differences do not affect risk. Small LPG operators should be exempt physical nature of LPG and the distribution operators already file entirely. NPGA sees no perceived safety risks it presents, PHMSA is annual reports, so APGA believes benefit from compliance with the not persuaded that small LPG oper- that extending the proposed limita- proposed requirements. They noted ators should be exempted. Further- tions for MM/LPG would have no that LPG systems are very small, more, NFPA Standard 58 does not value for other small operators. that they generally include pipe “mirror” the integrity management NMPRC would exclude small runs measured in feet vs. miles, and requirements in this rule and does operators from the administrative that the total quantity of gas that not adequately address the safety requirements of the proposed rule could be released in an accident is measures provided by this final based on the number of customers limited by the capacity of the sup- rule. IM requirements will comple- or staff. NMPRC concluded that ply tanks, a limitation not shared ment NFPA-58. DIMP principles would be benefi- with natural gas systems. NPGA d. Limitations for small gas cial for these operators but that the maintained that their members are distribution operators (other than associated administrative burden is already sufficiently regulated, MM/LPG). too great. mostly by states and through the in- A consultant suggested that Missouri would extend all of corporation of NFPA Standard 58 distribution IM should be limited to the MM/LPG limited requirements (NFPA-58) into Part 192 by refer- large operators at this time. He not- to small operators. ence. They believe that NFPA-58 ed that the PIPES Act does not PHMSA response: PHMSA mirrors the requirements of Part mandate such requirements for has not limited this rule to large op- 192 and the proposed rule and not- small operators and suggested that erators. As noted in the NPRM, ed that the standard is already rec- a phased approach would be pru- there is no established threshold to ognized as the primary governing dent. He believes that small opera- distinguish between large and small standard in §192.11(c) which states tors do not have the personnel or operators. In addition, the PIPES that the standard prevails in the background to implement these re- Act did not differentiate between event of a conflict between its pro- quirements and that the associated large and small distribution opera- visions and Part 192. NPGA also costs will likely exceed the bene- tors. The PIPES Act requires, “the suggested that applying this rule to fits. He noted that the risk from Secretary shall prescribe minimum LPG operators could have unin- third-party damage on such sys- standards for integrity management tended consequences. In a competi- tems is small, as operators' person- programs for distribution pipe- tive environment to reduce costs, nel see most of the system daily. lines.”6 We received few com- operators could break up their sys- He supported exclusion for small ments regarding how such a thresh- tems to fall outside of regulation, operators similar to that proposed old might be established. thus removing safety oversight for MM/LPG and suggested that Rather than delineating explic- completely. PHMSA collect additional data to it thresholds based on operator size, PHMSA response: In the see if additional requirements are PHMSA expects that operators NPRM we proposed a simpler set needed for these operators. A large with small systems will need only of IM requirements for MM/LPG operator also supported limited re- simplified plans. Operators will be operators, but we asked if these op- quirements for small operators, and able to scale their programs accord- erators should be completely ex- would include the number of cus- ing to the complexity of their distri- cluded from IM requirements. The tomers or mileage as a threshold bution systems. For example, AP- bulk of comments supported limit- criterion. GA's SHRIMP program will be ed requirements but opposed ex- The Washington Citizens available to assist small operators cluding these operators, arguing Committee on Pipeline Safety com- in developing their IM plans. that simple pipelines would need mented that the number of services e. Limitations for other opera- only simple IM plans. In the final should not be used alone to delin- tors. rule, PHMSA has not excluded eate small systems. They suggested these operators. that the type and uniformity of ma- 6 49 United States Code, section 60109(e)(1).

One operator suggested that their conventional pipelines in re- ing low-stress transmission pipe- limited requirements should also be sponse to the other requirements of line under distribution IM pro- established for “circumstantial” or subpart P should also satisfy grams. The groups reviewed the “incidental” operators. This opera- §192.1015. PHMSA agrees that op- existing research concerning the tor is a large company operating erators with multiple “systems” likely failure mode of low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines, but op- may benefit from having a single transmission pipelines. The record erates a single gas service line from IM plan. However, it is also possi- indicated that failure is expected to a local distribution company main ble that operators who own multi- be by leakage when the failure re- to a flare at a petroleum barge ple systems may operate them sep- sults from corrosion. It is less clear dock. The operator believes it arately and may desire separate IM that the likely failure mode would would be burdensome to have a plans. Under the final rule, opera- be leakage when the failure results distribution IM plan for this single tors will have the flexibility to treat from prior mechanical damage service line. A consultant and multiple systems under a common (e.g., from outside force). The GPTC also suggested that landfill plan, or to address them separately. stakeholder groups concluded that gas operators should be treated like Comment Topic 8: Transmis- additional technical work is needed MM/LPG, since their systems are sion lines operated by distribution to better define the threshold stress also small and pose limited risk. operators. level at which the likely failure New Hampshire recommended Many industry commenters mode transitions from leakage to that operators of conventional dis- suggested that piping operated by rupture to determine if low-stress tribution systems that also operate distribution operators but which is transmission pipeline should be ad- classified as transmission (mostly dressed under a distribution IM LPG should be allowed to use a 8 single plan for both. One operator because it operates at greater than program. PHMSA may consider suggested that LDC operators that 20% SMYS) should be included in this change later but agrees with also operate MM/LPG should be a distribution IM plan rather than in the stakeholder conclusion that ad- allowed to use a single DIMP plan a separate transmission IM plan. ditional research is required to sup- for both. These commenters suggested that port such a change. PHMSA response: As this could be done in this rule or by Comment Topic 9: Part 192 re- MM/LPG operators have not been changing the definition of a trans- quirement references. excluded from IM requirements, mission line. Commenters ex- NAPSR, APGA, and a number we see no compelling reason to explained that this “transmission” of operators objected to the proposed requirement that all opera- clude these other “small” opera- piping is usually operated as an integral part of the distribution sys- tors must enhance their damage tors. PHMSA considers that the prevention programs (proposed analysis of a small, simple system tem, and that it would be more efficient to treat it under distribution §192.1007(d)) because the require- should be relatively straightforward ment is open-ended. They suggest- and should result in a basic IM IM than under a separate transmission IM plan. Several commenters ed that §192.614, which requires plan. PHMSA notes the commenter such programs, should be revised if operating a single service line to a recognized that additional rulemaking may be needed to accomplish current programs are deemed inad- flare stack may be considered a equate. large volume customer as long as this change. PHMSA response: PHMSA A consultant suggested that the service line is not on public leak management requirements property. This final rule does not has made no change in response to these comments. The NPRM did should be included in §192.723 and apply to in-plant piping to a large damage prevention requirements in volume customer. Companies that not address changing the definition of transmission pipeline; therefore, §192.614. He generalized this com- conclude that compliance with a ment by noting that PHMSA rule would be overly burdensome such an action is outside the scope of this rulemaking. should avoid having two regula- due to unique circumstances may tions that address the same thing. have the option to apply for a waiv- The transmission IM regulations already provide for alternative He considers IM as an extension of er (or special permit), as permitted all of Part 192, and believes that by the applicable regulatory over- treatment of low-stress transmis- 7 proposed Subpart P should be lim- sight authority. sion pipeline (<30% SMYS) in recognition that this low-stress pipe ited to the high-level approach to The rule does not require that IM and related documentation. operators of conventional distribu- is more likely to fail by leakage tion systems that also operate LPG rather than by rupture. PHMSA also notes that stakeholder groups have separate IM plans or that op- 8 PHMSA, “Integrity Management studied the appropriateness of treat- erators of both MM and LPG sys- for Gas Distribution: Report of tems have separate plans for each. 7 See §192.941, What is a low Phase 1 Investigations,” December We expect that plans developed for stress reassessment? 2005, page 23.

PHMSA response: The final excavation damage, should be in- of gas distribution facilities can fol- rule requires that operators have cluded on reporting forms and their low them and produce a satisfacto- and implement leak management instructions rather than in the code ry result.” programs. Programs to manage and that this makes subsequent One operator suggested that all known leaks are different from pe- changes, if needed, easier. the records that are needed are con- riodic leak surveys required by PHMSA response: Although a tained in their damage prevention §192.723. “hazardous leak” definition was plan and annual reports to PHMSA. Operators are required to im- not explicitly part of our proposal, Another operator requested clarifi- plement a damage prevention pro- we did propose regulatory text in- cation concerning the data to be gram under §192.614. After further cluding that term; accordingly, captured to represent the “material consideration, PHMSA determined PHMSA has included a definition of which [newly installed piping a requirement to enhance damage for “hazardous leak” in the final systems] are constructed. One op- prevention programs on gas distri- ” rule. This definition is drawn from erator commented that the term bution systems through integrity GPTC guidelines already used by management was impracticable be- “documents to support” decisions, many operators to classify leaks. analyses, or processes is vague. cause these programs are largely PHMSA does not see a need to de- state-run. PHMSA is persuaded AGA and several operators fine other terms suggested in com- suggested changing proposed that modifications to damage pre- ments for purposes of this rule. vention requirements for distribu- §192.1015(c) from a written proce- PHMSA is also adding a definition dure for ranking threats to a de- tion systems should be made for small LPG operators to improve through amendments to §192.614 scription of how threats are ranked. readability of the Subpart P regula- They maintained that detailed pro- rather than through this rulemak- tions. ing. PHMSA has eliminated the cedures are not needed, but ac- Comment Topic 11: Required knowledged that master meter and proposed requirement to enhance documentation. damage prevention programs as small LPG operators must be able Proposed documentation re- to explain what was done to rank part of an integrity management ef- quirements were seen as unreason- fort. Although all references to the threats. ably burdensome. In particular, the Florida Public Service Com- damage prevention requirements in proposed requirements to docu- §192.614 have been removed, op- mission requested that operators be ment all decisions and changes erators may find through the imple- “ ” required to include in their IM mentation of their IM programs related to a distribution integrity plans a summary containing the that improvements to their damage management (IM) program and to risk analysis findings, the effect on prevention programs are needed. keep all related records for the life safety, and a schedule for actions Comment Topic 10: Hazardous of the pipeline were seen as unrea- resulting from the distribution IM leak definition. sonable. program. Several commenters suggested a. Scope of documentation. PHMSA response: In the we define hazardous leaks. The Many commenters suggested NPRM, the section regarding proposed rule would require report- deleting all documentation require- record retention (NPRM ing of the number of hazardous ments other than the requirement to §192.1015; Final Rule §192.1011) leaks repaired or eliminated as a maintain an IM plan. Others sug- required the following records: A performance measure. APGA, gested limiting documentation to written IM program; documents GPTC, NAPSR, Washington Citi- significant changes, to be defined supporting threat identification; a zens Committee on Pipeline Safety, at the operator's discretion. NAPSR written procedure for ranking the and several pipeline operators sug- suggested that written procedures threats; documents to support any gested that a common definition is and documents supporting threat decision, analysis, or process de- needed to assure consistent report- identification should be limited, veloped and used to implement and ing and the ability to conduct noting that excessive documenta- evaluate each element of the IM meaningful analysis of this perfor- tion does not support safety. NAP- program; records identifying mance measure. Most suggested SR would limit the requirement for changes made to the IM program, that the definition of a grade 1 leak procedures in proposed or its elements, including a descrip- in the current GPTC guidelines be §192.1005(b) to those that “reason- tion of the change and the reason it adopted. One operator suggested a ably describe” processes for devel- was made; and records on perfor- need to define the term “leak,” oping and implementing IM ele- mance measures. PHMSA has re- suggesting that usage is not consis- ments. NAPSR further suggested moved this list of documents and tent across the industry. AGA and a requiring that procedures “should simplified the language of the regu- number of operators suggested that provide adequate direction so that a lation to require operators to main- any needed definitions, other than person with reasonable knowledge tain documentation demonstrating compliance. Because of the simpli-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 13/42 192-113 192-113 fied language, AGA's comment re- Iowa suggested deleting the re- that this is not inherently an IM regarding ranking threats is moot. quirements to retain, as records, a quirement. In the NPRM, PHMSA Generally, documentation demon- written IM plan and a procedure for proposed to delete from Subpart H strating compliance will include ranking threats. They maintained the requirement that operators noti- documentation to show how the that these are not records, per se, fy customers of the availability of operator has fulfilled the require- but rather are part of plans that are EFVs but to keep the performance ments of each element of required to be retained by other standards for EFVs in Subpart H. §192.1007. PHMSA believes this is regulations. The commenters consider this sep- the type of information to which One consultant suggested re- aration unnecessary. Florida was referring in its com- vising or deleting the term “must” AGA, NAPSR and several opment. from the requirement that an opera- erators also requested that we clari- PHMSA has revised tor must retain records for a specify that EFVs are not required to be §192.1005 to eliminate the pro- fied period. He noted that an opera- installed on branch service lines. posed requirement that operator tor who retained records for a They noted that the PIPES Act procedures describe “the process- longer period would be in technical mandate addressed service lines to es” for developing and implement- violation of such a requirement. single family residences and that it ing its IM program. Although we PHMSA response: PHMSA is impractical to install EFVs on did not include all of NAPSR's sug- agrees that the proposed require- branch service lines. gestions in the final rule language, ments for documentation retention PHMSA response: PHMSA we have modified the language so were overly broad. PHMSA con- has relocated the requirement to in- that the section now requires that cludes that retaining documentation stall EFVs to subpart H. It will now replace §192.383. PHMSA has in- operators have procedures for de- describing changes to an IM plan “ cluded in revised §192.383 a defi- veloping and implementing the re- will be useful for some period, but agrees that these records would be nition of service line serving a sin- quired elements. Although PHM- ” of limited or no use many years af- gle-family residence. This defini- SA agrees that all procedures ter the changes are implemented. tion excludes branch service lines, should be clearly written so that PHMSA has revised the final rule consistent with the intent of our anyone who has to use them can to require that operators maintain proposal in the NPRM. understand and follow them, we records demonstrating compliance b. Installed EFVs as perfor- did not include this language in the for 10 years, and that these records mance measure. regulation text. must include superseded IM plans. APGA, GPTC, and several op- b. Documentation retention. PHMSA disagrees that the IM erators suggested that the number Commenters proposed limiting plan is not a record. PHMSA con- of EFVs installed should not be document retention to 10 years or, siders that superseded IM plans are treated as a measure of IM effec- in a few cases, through the next records–a record of what the IM tiveness. This measure relates to regulatory audit cycle. Commenters program consisted of at a particular the number of new or replaced ser- universally considered that these time. PHMSA does not consider it vices and is unrelated to whether documents would not be of value necessary or appropriate to delete IM is effective or not. These com- beyond these near-term periods and the term “must” as recordkeeping menters generally did not object to noted that resources to maintain collecting the data, only to its ap- such records would take away from is not voluntary. The 10-year retention requirement is a minimum re- parent treatment as an IM perfor- those available to operate and mance measure. One operator sug- maintain the pipelines. quirement; operators may maintain records for a longer period. gested that this item simply be GPTC and one operator sug- added to the annual report. Another gested that required retention of Comment Topic 12: Excess flow valves (EFVs). suggested not requiring it to be re- performance measures be limited to ported at all. A third requested clar- 2 times the program re-evaluation A number of comments were made concerning the proposed re- ification that the number to be re- period. They based this on the pro- ported is the total number of EFVs posed 10-year retention, which quirements related to EFVs. a. EFV in Subpart H. installed, which they believe to be would be twice the mandatory 5- PHMSA's intent. year re-evaluation period. They AGA, APGA, NAPSR, a number of operators and an industry PHMSA response: PHMSA noted that operators who evaluate agrees that the number of EFVs in- their performance measures more consultant suggested that the requirement to install EFVs be stalled is not a measure of the ef- frequently would be overly bur- fectiveness of a distribution IM dened by requirements to keep moved to Subpart H rather than remaining a part of IM requirements. program. PHMSA expects to need records beyond their potential use- this information to respond to ques- ful life. Although EFV installation is a PIPES Act requirement, they noted tions from NTSB and Congress (and perhaps other organizations)

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 14/42 192-113 192-113 concerning the implementation of tion should be required for circum- tions that can cause damage, and the PIPES Act provision requiring stances other than entire replace- thus over the threat that EFVs are that EFVs be installed. The requirement of an existing service line. intended to mitigate. ment to include this information in They contend that the current prac- PHMSA response: In the the annual report has been moved tice, pursuant to §192.383, is to re- NPRM, we requested public com- to §192.383. See the comment top- quire an operator to notify a cus- ment on whether we should limit ic discussing the annual report for tomer of the availability of an EFV the requirements imposed on MM more information. if replacement work provides an and LPG operators. Although the c. Installation criteria. opportunity to install an EFV, even PIPES Act mandate did not ex- Connecticut Department of if this involves less than replace- clude these operators from the EFV Public Utility Control recommend- ment of the entire service line. The installation requirement, we pro- ed that the EFV requirement be ex- Commission believes that PHM- posed to exclude them from the re- panded beyond the PIPES mandate SA's intent was to require installa- quirement because we expect few to all situations in which installation in the same circumstances and of these lines will meet the thresh- tion of an EFV is technically feasi- believes that the language in the old performance requirements. ble. One operator suggested that proposed rule does not implement Based on the comments we re- the pressure criterion be revised to that intent. ceived, we have re-evaluated the specify that the distribution system, PHMSA response: We have re- proposal and determined they rather than the service line, must vised the reference to “installed or should not be excluded. We agree operate at a minimum of 10 psig entirely replaced” to use the de- with commenters that the threshold throughout the year. performance requirements are a fined term replaced service line PHMSA response: PHMSA “ ” better means of excluding some has not made either change. The in- to eliminate confusion. PHMSA systems than just a blanket exclu- stallation criteria included in the has retained the definition of re- sion. Thus, in the final rule, we PIPES Act reflect the performance placed service line in the revised have included master meter and standards that have long been in 49 §192.383(a) and requires installa- LPG operators among the distribu- CFR §192.381. Most EFVs manu- tion for situations meeting this def- tion operators subject to the re- factured in the U.S. comply with inition. EFVs, to be effective, are quirement to install EFVs. these criteria and PHMSA consid- installed at or near the connection As stated above, we expect ers them to define, for practical to the main. Using the defined term that because of the threshold per- purposes, where installation is fea- “replaced service line” avoids the formance standards required for sible. States have the ability to im- misunderstanding expressed by the EFV installation, most of these pose additional requirements af- commenter; PHMSA does not in- simpler master meter and LPG sys- fecting circumstances not en- tend to mandate additional excava- tems will not meet the threshold veloped within the criteria in this tion to install an EFV when another and operators of these systems will rule if they can justify such require- portion of the service line is exca- install few, if any, EFVs as a result ments under state procedures. With vated. The cost of excavation is the of this requirement. For example, respect to the operator's comment, significant factor in installing an many of these systems operate at the pressure at the valve location, EFV, and PHMSA considers it ap- very low pressures, and the rule i.e., in the service line, is the rele- propriate to require installation provides that EFVs need not be in- vant criterion. It does not matter if when the area near the connection stalled where operating pressure is pressure at some other location in to the main has been exposed and less than 10 psig. the distribution system is lower an opportunity to install exists. It f. Terminology. than required. would not be prudent to forego this One operator suggested that d. Replaced service line defini- opportunity for installation simply the references to §192.381 should tion. because some downstream portion refer to “performance standards” One operator requested that the of the service line is not replaced. rather than to performance require- rule define a replaced service line e. Master meter/LPG exclu- ments, as that would be more accu- as a natural gas service line that is sion. rate. entirely replaced, noting that this is NAPSR and Southwest Gas PHMSA response: PHMSA consistent with the PIPES Act. objected to the proposal's exclusion agrees and has made this change. GPTC and Iowa suggested that the of master meter and LPG operators Comment Topic 13: Guidance. definition of a replaced line now in from the requirement to install A number of comments ad- §192.383(a) be moved to §192.381, EFVs. They noted that the PIPES dressed guidance available for im- since it would be lost with repeal of mandate did not exclude these op- plementing this rule. §192.383. erators. They also suggested that a. PHMSA guidance. Missouri Public Service Com- these small operators do not have mission commented that installa- the degree of control over excava-

AGA and several operators changes PHMSA might make to its also modified §192.1007(e) to clar- suggested that the guidance docu- own guidance for MM/LPG opera- ify that operators who repair all ment prepared by PHMSA, and in- tors, not to the GPTC guidance. leaks when found do not have to cluded in the docket, is not neces- Comment Topic 14: Leak categorize them for hazard for the sary. They noted that the GPTC monitoring. sole purpose of performance moni- Guidance for integrity management A large distribution operator toring. (an appendix to the GPTC Guide) suggested that the rule should not PHMSA does not consider it is more complete and will be avail- require operators to “implement” necessary to delineate the contents able separately from the GPTC leak monitoring because that im- of an effective leak management Guide, at nominal cost. Iowa com- plies they do not now have such program in the rule. Operators mented that PHMSA's guide is not programs. They suggested that the should develop a program based on useful and that it conflicts with the rule require that operators “have” their knowledge of their pipeline provisions in the rule concerning such programs. The operator also system. The GPTC Guide also of- leak management. One operator suggested that the rule delineate the fers guidance regarding how to de- suggested that the PHMSA guid- contents of an effective program. velop an effective leak manage- ance document contains adequate Several smaller operators sug- ment program. detail for master meter and LPG gested that leak monitoring should Comment Topic 15: State au- operators but that references to re- not be required in this rule at all. thority. quirements for larger operators They commented that only risk Florida PSC commented that should be eliminated from it. They measures indicated as appropriate States must have the authority to commented that the document does by risk analysis should be required. review, analyze, and approve or not accurately reflect reporting and APGA noted that some opera- deny an operator's distribution IM other requirements for larger operators do not monitor leaks; they re- program. They contended that the tors. pair all leaks. APGA contended programs will be unique and com- PHMSA response: PHMSA that these operators should not be plex. They noted that evaluation of agrees that the GPTC appendix required to establish criteria to a program will require judgment provides more information than grade leaks. Operators who do not and suggested that reaching an PHMSA's draft guidance. PHMSA repair all leaks should have criteria agreeable program may require is concerned, however, that the for grading leaks not repaired. several years. GPTC appendix will not be useful PHMSA response: Leakage is NAPSR commented that the for most master meter and small the principal failure mode for low- rule should explicitly recognize the LPG operators. Many of these op- stress distribution pipelines. Most need to include flexibility for erators will likely not purchase the incidents on distribution pipelines States to accommodate their specif- Guide or the separate appendix. result from the accumulation of gas ic circumstances. They noted that The appendix contains more infor- that has leaked from the pipeline. this need was recognized explicitly mation than these operators need, Section 192.703(c) already requires in PHMSA's report to Congress on and they often lack the technical re- that hazardous leaks be repaired DIMP. sources to extract the more-limited promptly, but operators may repair PHMSA response: Certified information that is important to leaks at a later time if determined state regulators who exercise juris- their operations. PHMSA considers not to be hazardous. PHMSA con- diction over intrastate distribution it important to provide guidance fo- siders it important that operators pipeline operators have the authori- cused specifically on the needs of monitor these leaks to assure that ty and obligation to inspect opera- MM/LPG operators and will edit hazardous conditions do not devel- tor compliance with this final rule; its guidance document to do so. op. At the same time, PHMSA rec- however, PHMSA does not require PHMSA will remove other infor- ognizes that some operators repair an operator's plan to be approved mation and defer to the GPTC ap- all leaks when found and does not by the regulatory authority. Regu- pendix as guidance for larger oper- intend to require these operators to lators must review operator IM ators. develop unnecessary monitoring programs and direct changes in b. GPTC Guide. programs. PHMSA also recognizes cases in which they determine that GPTC and an industry consul- that most operators that do not re- the operator's program does not tant noted that the preamble stated pair all leaks when found already comply with the rule. PHMSA rec- PHMSA would revise GPTC guid- have leak monitoring programs. ognizes that IM programs will be ance if needed. They point out that PHMSA has revised the final rule unique and can be complicated (re- only GPTC can change that guid- to require that risk mitigation mea- flecting complexity in some distri- ance. sures include a leak monitoring bution systems) and that these pro- PHMSA response: The com- program except if all leaks are re- grams will likely take several years menters are correct. The statement paired when found. PHMSA has to reach maturity. As noted earlier, in the NPRM referred to potential PHMSA plans to develop and pro-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 16/42 192-113 192-113 vide training and qualification pro- occur on a periodic basis, based on system and at least every five grams for state inspectors. PHMSA the complexity of the system and years, as proposed in the NPRM. intends to provide states with back- changes in factors affecting the risk d. Required improvement at ground information necessary for of failure; however, re-evaluations specific frequency. them to conduct reviews and to must occur at least once every 5 Several operators objected to avoid large inconsistencies in the years. the proposed requirement to peri- approach to IM across the country. b. Continuous improvement. odically improve each IM element PHMSA's statements in this One operator noted that mak- in §192.1005(b) (as well as the re- rulemaking record have consistent- ing changes solely to show “im- quirement to continually refine and ly recognized that states must have provement” can be disruptive and improve in proposed §192.1007(a) the flexibility to address their spe- ultimately detrimental to perfor- (4)). They maintained it may not be cific circumstances. Nothing in the mance. reasonable to “improve” all ele- language of the rule restricts this PHMSA response: Continuous ments at all times, and that enforce- flexibility. PHMSA understands improvement is an important part ment of such a requirement would that operator IM programs will of the philosophy underlying IM. pose problems. They suggested that vary based on differences in their Where evaluation of an IM pro- the proposed requirements to “im- pipelines and operations and that gram identifies changes that can prove be replaced with a require- states need to consider each pro- ” improve the program's effective- ment to review and adjust/update gram on its merits. The rule estab- ness, these changes should be in- lishes high-level requirements but as needed to meet distribution IM corporated into the program. The goals. One operator read proposed leaves operators and their regula- ultimate goal is to improve safety. tors (mostly states) to determine §192.1007(d) to require that opera- Improvement cannot be realized tors implement new mitigation how best to do it in each individual without change. circumstance. measures annually and requested c. Evaluation frequency. we clarify that this is not required. Comment Topic 16: IM pro- NAPSR objected to the program evaluation and improvement. PHMSA response: PHMSA's posed requirement that operators intent was to encourage operators A number of comments ad- must determine the appropriate pe- dressed proposed requirements to to consider potential improvements riod for conducting complete pro- to their IM programs routinely as a evaluate and improve distribution gram evaluations based on the IM programs. regular part of their activities. To complexity of their systems and improve clarity, PHMSA has re- a. Continual evaluation. changes in factors affecting the risk APGA, Iowa, and a number of vised the final rule to require that of failure and that the interval se- programs be reviewed on a period- operators objected to the proposed lected may not exceed five years. requirement in §192.1007(f) that an ic basis and improved as needed. NAPSR suggested that an evalua- Section 192.1007(d) requires that operator “must continually re-eval- tion be required annually (not to operators determine and implement uate threats and risks on its entire exceed 15 months), similar to the measures to reduce risks. Section system.” These commenters sug- evaluation interval for other pro- 192.1007(f) requires that operators gested that such re-evaluation be grams required by Part 192. NAP- reassess their programs periodical- required on a periodic basis. They SR believes that five years is too ly, but at least every five years. noted that continuous re-evaluation long, noting that the stakeholder Nothing in the rule requires that is unreasonable and that it doesn't conclusion was that an annual re- new mitigation measures be imple- follow from the concept of “peri- view should be required. mented at any periodicity. odic evaluation and improvement” PHMSA response: An operator e. Redundant requirements. (the title of this proposed para- should re-evaluate its IM program One operator suggested we graph). whenever changes occur in the sys- delete the proposed requirement in PHMSA response: PHMSA tem that may result in new knowl- §192.1005(b) that operators have considers that operators should edge, new threats or other informa- procedures for “periodically im- evaluate the effectiveness of their tion that would permit improve- proving each of the required element in the IM program. For some IM programs on a routine basis, ments . The operator noted that pe- operators, this may be more fre- ” i.e., continually. That is a basic “ ” quent than an annual basis. For oth- riodic evaluation and improvement concept of an effective IM program er operators, these types of changes is, itself, an element, and that this that has been used in other IM reg- may occur seldomly. Therefore, we makes the proposed requirement in ulations. Nonetheless, because of are retaining the requirement for all §192.1005(b) confusing, at best. the overwhelming concern raised operators to evaluate their program PHMSA response: PHMSA by commenters about this term, at a period appropriate for their agrees and has revised the final PHMSA has revised the final rule rule. We have revised section to require that such re-evaluations 192.1005 to specify that an opera-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 17/42 192-113 192-113 tor must develop and implement a structure to record and properly NAPSR suggested that the pro- written IM program that addresses manage data from each piece of posed rule should require operators the required elements in plastic pipe. They contended that to assemble information about their §192.1007. Section 192.1007 now the knowledge requirements of pro- systems that is “reasonably avail- provides that the IM plan must posed §192.1007(a) are sufficient able.” NAPSR maintained that it is have procedures to develop and im- to manage pipeline integrity. unreasonable to suggest operators plement the required elements. One Several operators suggested should develop the best under- of the required elements is to refine that ASTM should address pipe standing possible. NAPSR further and improve the program as needed marking and that PHMSA should maintained that the proposed lan- (section 192.1007(a)(4)). not establish requirements in this guage fails to list useful sources of f. Consideration of threats in area. Some operators, GPTC, Iowa information and implies an un- re-evaluation. and one plastic pipe consulting bounded need for knowledge. Another operator suggested company noted that the current ver- NAPSR would revise the language that PHMSA delete the require- sion of ASTM D2513, which is not to more completely identify the ment in proposed §192.1007(f) that yet referenced in Part 192, includes sources of information to be used an operator “consider the relevance permanent marking requirements. and would limit the requirement to of threats in one location to other Some operators noted that fittings identify system characteristics and areas” as part of its periodic re- are a separate concern and suggest- environmental factors (proposed ed that they would present other evaluation. This operator contend- sub-paragraph (a)(1)) to those rea- problems/considerations. “ ed that this is covered by the re- sonably” necessary to assess quirement in proposed PHMSA response: We did not propose a requirement to mark threats and risks. §192.1007(c) that threats be con- PHMSA response: PHMSA sidered in all areas. plastic pipe. Rather, we asked for comment to elicit better informa- understands NAPSR's concern. PHMSA response: PHMSA PHMSA does not intend that oper- recognizes that a thorough evaluation about various pipe types and their performance history. PHMSA ators expend excessive effort, re- tion of threats in any area should view every record available in their identify threats of concern regard- believes operators may be able to better manage risk with better in- archives, or explore every nuance less of whether they affect other ar- about their pipelines. At the same eas of an operator's system. Still, formation regarding pipe performance. We plan to address this is- time, PHMSA expects that opera- PHMSA considers that knowledge tors will devote sufficient effort to that a threat affects a system in one sue outside this rulemaking. Comment Topic 18: Continu- develop as thorough an understand- location, and how that threat mani- ing of their pipelines as they can fests itself, can inform considera- ing surveillance. Iowa and a large operator sug- while using reasonable effort. tion of that threat in other loca- PHMSA has revised the final rule tions. PHMSA has retained this re- gested that we revise §192.613, Continuing surveillance, to exclude to require that operators develop an quirement in the final rule. understanding of their pipeline sys- Comment Topic 17: Permanent distribution systems subject to pro- tems from reasonably available marking of plastic pipe. posed new Subpart P because it “ The NPRM preamble posed a will be a redundant and unneces- information.” PHMSA considers number of questions concerning sary requirement if DIMP is imple- that this strikes the appropriate bal- permanent marking of plastic pipe. mented as proposed. ance. Because of this change, These questions elicited a number PHMSA response: PHMSA PHMSA does not consider it neces- of responses. disagrees. While some aspects of sary to modify subparagraph (a)(1) a. Support for marking IM may overlap activities operators to limit information to assess One operator strongly support- perform as part of continuing sur- threats and risk to “reasonably” ed requirements to mark plastic veillance, there are requirements in necessary information. pipe, providing a list of attributes §192.613 that are not duplicated in PHMSA has not included in the operator believes should be this rule. For example, DIMP does the rule a list of information that marked every 18 inches. not specifically require an operator operators should use to find infor- b. Against marking to recondition or phase out an un- mation about their pipeline sys- AGA, supported by at least satisfactory segment when no im- tems. An operator is in the best po- one operator, suggested that plastic mediate hazard exists. sition to determine what informa- pipe marking should be considered Comment Topic 19: Informa- tion is most relevant to its system. outside of DIMP. Both maintained tion gathering. PHMSA is concerned that any such that manufacturer input is needed The NPRM proposed list would become limiting (i.e., on this subject and that most opera- (§192.1007(a)) that an operator operators and regulators would not tors do not possess the data infra- must demonstrate an understanding consider sources not included in of the gas distribution system.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 18/42 192-113 192-113 the list) or would create unneces- to take advantage of opportunities strated. Another operator would sary burdens (e.g., a perceived obli- to improve system knowledge add “design and operations” to the gation to review a source listed through any of their normal activi- requirement in proposed paragraph even though it would not reveal ties, including those that go beyond (a)(1) to understand the system. useful information). those activities specifically re- PHMSA response: PHMSA Comment Topic 20: Knowl- quired by Part 192. For example, has revised paragraph 192.1007(a) edge of pipeline. excavation that exposes the pipe- (2) to require that operators consid- PHMSA also received other line system presents a significant er lessons from past design and op- comments regarding the need for opportunity to learn additional in- eration experience, rather than that an operator to know its pipeline: formation, but few excavations are they “understand” them. For exam- a. Environmental factors. conducted specifically to comply ple, operators could involve main- APGA, GPTC, and a large op- with Part 192 provisions. tenance foremen/supervisors in erator suggested that we clarify c. Additional activities. their information collection activi- “environmental factors” in PA PUC would expand the list ties, surveying them to ask about §192.1007(a)(1) to mean factors of activities through which opera- unusual circumstances they have (e.g., washouts, landslides) that tors are expected to gain additional encountered in their activities could pose a hazard to the pipe as knowledge to include maintenance and/or asking them to review re- opposed to factors that would make and management policies in addi- sulting system descriptions and the environmental consequences of tion to past design and operations identify any information they be- accidents worse. They noted that (§192.1007(a)(2)). They would re- lieve useful that is not already in- gas does not produce significant vise proposed §192.1007(a)(4) to cluded. Good information only has environmental consequences as replace the requirement to “contin- an effect when it is used. Compli- would oil or other hazardous liq- ually” refine and improve knowl- ance will be reviewed by assuring uids. edge with a requirement to “devel- that an operator has implemented PHMSA response: PHMSA op an ongoing process by which means to gather this information concludes that no change is needed. the operator's knowledge of its sys- and has considered the information. This paragraph already refers to tem will be refined and improved.” e. Terminology. “environmental factors that are PHMSA response: PHMSA's necessary to assess the applicable An operator would change use of operations in this context threats and risks to its gas distribu- “ ” was intended in its broadest sense– “piping system” and “piping and tion pipeline” and does not refer to activities associated with operating appurtenances” in paragraph (a)(5) consequences. PHMSA notes that the system, including maintenance. to “pipeline” for consistency with washouts and landslides are ex- This comment indicates that it is the definition of pipeline in §192.3. treme examples of “environmental possible to read the proposed lan- PHMSA response: PHMSA factors” that might be of concern. guage as excluding maintenance. has made the suggested change. Other environmental factors that PHMSA has modified the final rule Comment Topic 21: Threat might need to be considered in- to reflect that information gained identification. clude soil corrosivity or location in from operations and maintenance Several changes were suggest- an area likely to experience a should be considered. PHMSA ed to the proposed requirement for greater-than-normal amount of ex- considers the phrase “management operators to identify threats in cavation activity. policies” to be vague and subject to §192.1007(b). Paragraph (b) listed b. Normal activities. misunderstanding and has not in- categories of threats and potential One large operator suggested cluded it in the final rule. Changes sources of information an operator that the “normal activities” through associated with eliminating the im- must consider. a. Data sources. which operators are expected to plication that operators must “con- glean additional knowledge (pro- APGA would delete reference tinually improve their knowledge posed 192.1007(a)(3)) be specifi- ” to “one call experience” because have been described above. the meaning of this term is unclear cally limited to, “normal activities d. Design and operations infor- performed in the construction, op- and would add nothing beyond the mation. operator's own damage experience. erations, and maintenance of gas One operator would delete pro- distribution systems in accordance posed paragraph (a)(2), which One operator would limit “incident with the applicable requirements of would require that an operator un- history” as a data source to inci- Part 192.” derstand the information gained dents requiring reporting per PHMSA response: PHMSA from past design and operations, §191.3. Another operator suggested does not consider this limitation because it is unclear how compli- that the list of threats be revised to necessary. Operators are expected ance can be achieved or demon- match the list in the annual report,

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 19/42 192-113 192-113 noting that there are minor incon- ed that his own analyses of small ably consistent risk results is circu- sistencies in the wording of the systems (i.e., master meter) sug- lar logic and has deleted this crite- proposed requirement. An operator gests that threats other than third- rion. suggested that “and any other con- party damage may be as significant b. Evaluate threats. cerns that could threaten the in- or more significant for small opera- One operator suggested that tegrity of the pipeline” is unlimited tors than for large. the requirement to evaluate threats and thus unreasonable. PHMSA response: Each opera- as part of the risk assessment be PHMSA response: Because tor will be required to determine limited to known threats because it relevant information from one call the relative importance of threats is impossible to rank the impor- experience would overlap with the for its distribution pipeline as part tance of “potential” threats. operator's own excavation damage of implementing this final rule. An PHMSA response: PHMSA experience, PHMSA agrees that operator will be able to factor in disagrees. In many cases, “known the degree of control it has over its listing one-call as a source of infor- threats” are treated as threats that mation for threat identification is system when determining the relative importance of threats. We have have resulted in an effect on the redundant and has made the sug- pipeline, while other threats are, at gested change. The term incident, not revised the language in the final rule. best, “potential.” For example, as used in the regulations, is com- earth movement might not be con- monly understood to refer to inci- Comment Topic 22: Risk as- sidered a known threat for pipe dents as defined in §191.3. The list sessments. “ ” of categories in this final rule is Several comments addressed located in an area where landslides consistent with the categories in the the proposed requirements for risk can be expected but where the annual report. What minor wording assessment in §192.1007(c). pipeline has never been affected by inconsistencies exist are due to use a. Subdividing a pipeline for one. It would be important, though, of the list in a sentence structure in risk analysis. to consider the likelihood that the the rule. PHMSA considers the lan- NAPSR and one operator com- “potential” threat of earth move- mented that subdivision of a distri- guage regarding “any other con- ment might affect this pipe as part bution system for risk analysis may of an operator's IM program. It cerns” to be consistent with the not be geographical, as they believe should also be possible to collect “other” category of threats on the the proposed language implied. information about the relative like- annual report form. They noted that similarity of char- lihood of a landslide to consider b. Sources of information. acteristics and environment may be this threat, including ranking its NAPSR and Iowa contended more important factors for subdi- importance and determining that the proposed language unnec- viding analyses than location. The whether mitigative actions are ap- essarily restricts sources of infor- operator suggested that class loca- propriate. PHMSA has retained the mation an operator may use (i.e., tion might be an appropriate factor. requirement to consider potential “An operator must gather informa- Other operators suggested that the threats in the final rule. tion from the following sources”). concept of “regions” for analysis is c. Defining terms. Instead, NAPSR would require that not clear and commented that the One operator suggested that an operator consider sufficient data suggestion for grouping by consis- the term “relative probability” to identify existing and potential tent risk or actions be eliminated; should be defined. Another opera- threats and would identify the pro- they noted that one cannot group tor suggested that the term “proba- by common risk without analyzing posed list as sources an operator bility” be replaced with “likeli- risk first and that suggesting other- “may include, as appropriate.” hood” throughout the proposed PHMSA response: PHMSA wise results in circular logic. PHMSA response: PHMSA rule, to eliminate the implication a agrees and has revised the para- rigorous mathematical process is graph to clarify that the informa- agrees that subdividing a distribution pipeline system for risk analy- required. tion sources an operator must use PHMSA response: PHMSA to identify threats are not limited to sis could be done on a basis other agrees that use of the terms proba- those listed. than geography. PHMSA has mod- “ c. Third party damage. ified the final rule to clarify that bility,” “relative probability,” and A consultant noted that the geographic proximity is only an ex- “prioritize” could imply a need for threat of third-party damage should ample of how a region may be de- a mathematical process. PHMSA not be as significant for small oper- fined, by inserting “e.g.,” before has noted confusion about the need ators as for large because small op- this description and by adding an- for quantified estimates of risk erators exercise better control other example. PHMSA agrees that throughout the discussions related and/or it is easier to patrol their the concept of creating regions for to distribution integrity manage- systems. At the same time, he not- risk analysis on the basis of reason- ment. For complex systems where

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 20/42 192-113 192-113 there is a wealth of data, a mathe- er. This would not, however, assure place non-state-of-the-art pipe, and matical analysis of risk may be the the most effective application of PHMSA encourages those efforts. best way to understand the relative safety resources, which an operator PHMSA expects that the states will importance of various threats. For must apply across its entire pipe- monitor the amount of non-s- most distribution pipeline systems, line, regardless of differences in the tate-of-the-art pipe remaining in an however, simpler techniques (as material of construction. individual operator's system as part described in the GPTC Guide, for Comment Topic 23: Perfor- of such replacement programs. Re- example) should suffice. PHMSA mance measures. porting this parameter on a national has revised the final rule, to avoid A number of comments were basis is not needed to facilitate re- further confusion, to replace these made concerning proposed require- quired pipe replacement programs. terms with “importance,” “relative ments for performance measures. b. The proposed performance importance,” and “rank.” One use- In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed measures included the number of ful reference tool could be the that an operator must develop and hazardous leaks eliminated or re- GPTC Guide for guidance on non- monitor performance measures to paired and the number of excava- mathematical methods of evaluat- evaluate the effectiveness of its IM tion tickets. A consultant suggested ing risk. program and required the perfor- the need for more precise defini- d. Prioritize risk. mance measures to include the tions of “ticket” and “leak” as the One operator suggested that number of hazardous leaks, catego- use of these terms is imprecise the requirement to estimate or pri- rized by cause and by materials, across the industry. Two operators oritize risk should be eliminated, number of excavation damages, the agreed that a definition of excava- and that the requirement be limited number of excavation tickets, the tion ticket is needed. Another sug- to determining the relative proba- number of EFVs installed, and the gested that this be limited to “tick- bility of threats. The operator con- total number of leaks categorized ets received from the notification by cause. The proposal required an tended that each pipe material car- center where marking is required. operator to develop additional mea- ” ries its own threats, and that it is Another suggested that PHMSA difficult to prioritize one over an- sures necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of controlling each should not define this term. other. Prioritization is too difficult An operator suggested that and may not meet the intended pur- identified threat. a. NAPSR suggested an addi- damages should be normalized per pose because there is often insuffi- 100 tickets. The operator noted that cient data to quantify. tional performance measure, which could be derived from data already differing levels of construction ac- PHMSA response: PHMSA tivity could imply that an operator's disagrees with eliminating a re- reported: the amount or ratio of non-state-of-the-art pipe in an oper- IM program is more, or less, effec- quirement to prioritize risk. Priori- tive but that this is totally outside tizing actions is an inherent part of ator's system. PHMSA response: PHMSA the operator's control. Another op- managing any activity. It is needed erator suggested that the number of to apply limited resources where does not agree that this is an appropriate national measure. This mea- excavation tickets has no value as a they will do the most good. With performance measure, and that this respect to IM, PHMSA firmly be- sure was considered in the work of the stakeholder groups. The final data is expensive to generate. This lieves that this prioritization should operator explained that tickets are consider risk, i.e., both likelihood report of that work did not recommend this as a national perfor- often issued for areas in which and consequences. For example, an 9 there is no gas pipe in the vicinity operator may face two threats that mance measure. One reason for this conclusion was that it could be of planned excavation and that can produce different conse- tickets may be renewed. These op- quences. It would be inappropriate misleading. Much older pipe (e.g., cast iron) that has been properly erators also suggested that tickets to apply resources to the threat with are issued for areas of differing a slightly higher likelihood of oc- maintained operates quite safely. At the same time, problems have size. They contended that, because currence and not to the second of all of these differences, this data threat if the consequences that sometimes been experienced with new pipe (e.g., specific heats of is not useful to normalize excava- could result from the second threat tion damage information. are much greater. The risk (i.e., plastic pipe). PHMSA recognizes that many states are working with PHMSA response: The pur- likelihood and consequences) of pose of the measure to report the the second threat is higher. their operators to support pipe replacement programs intended to re- number of excavation tickets is to PHMSA understands that it is normalize excavation damage in- easier to rank threats when only a 9 PHMSA, “Integrity Management formation in order, for example, to single variable changes, and that for Gas Distribution: Report of help determine whether reduced limiting consideration to threat excavation damages are a result of Phase 1 Investigations,” December ranking by material would be easi- improved damage prevention pro- 2005, page 16.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 21/42 192-113 192-113 grams or less construction (excava- Leaks have been reported on data system changes and personnel tion) activity. Normalization is nec- the annual report required of distri- training. essary precisely for the reason bution operators for many years. PHMSA response: Measuring identified by the commenters– The instructions for completing the performance is a key element of all changes in the amount of construc- annual report define a leak as the integrity management programs. tion activity will affect the number unintentional release of gas from a IM rules for other types of pipe- of excavation damages but are out- pipeline. PHMSA is not aware of lines also include this element. At side the control of an operator's IM any difficulties or confusion in re- its basic level, IM is an iterative program. PHMSA expects that porting leaks, and does not consid- process consisting of analysis of analyses will likely normalize per er that a definition need be added risks, implementing actions to re- 100 tickets but notes that this is a to this rule. duce risk, monitoring to evaluate simple arithmetic adjustment if the c. A consultant suggested that the effectiveness of those actions, basic data is available. Operators the requirement for operators to and modifying the program as are required to participate in one- measure performance should be needed. Without performance mon- call programs to receive notifica- deleted. Alternatively, PHMSA itoring, the feedback portion of the tion of planned excavation activity, should evaluate incidents against process cannot occur. i.e., tickets.10 PHMSA thus con- program effectiveness. The consul- On a macro basis, PHMSA cludes that collecting this data will tant believes that individual opera- agrees that the number of incidents not be expensive. Reporting of this tors cannot generate enough data is the ultimate measure of the ef- parameter has thus been retained in for meaningful analysis and that fectiveness of efforts to assure dis- the final rule. problems inherent in performing tribution safety. PHMSA will con- Differences in how tickets are statistical analysis of small num- tinue to collect incident data and treated and in the definition of bers and luck, both good and bad, will use that data to evaluate the ef- “ticket” among various state one- would likely obscure meaningful fectiveness of its regulatory pro- call programs were discussed dur- information from an operator's per- gram. This measure is not useful to ing the stakeholders' work preced- formance analyses. Two com- individual operators, however, pre- ing the proposed rule. The groups menters suggested that the perfor- cisely because the number of inci- noted that this term is defined mance measures requirement be dents is small. Many operators will somewhat differently by various eliminated. An operator suggested experience no incidents in a year. state one-call programs, and that that the rule should simply require Few, if any, will experience more these differences could cause in- that operators have appropriate than one. Operators must use other consistencies in data reported to measures. Iowa suggested that the non-incident measures to evaluate PHMSA. At the same time, the requirements are not needed if the the effectiveness of their own pro- groups noted that considerable ad- annual report forms are modified to grams. PHMSA continues to con- ditional effort could be required for include the desired information. clude that it is appropriate that the operators to track tickets in two The NPRM preamble noted rule require these actions. ways–one matching their one-call that a reduction of incidents will be As discussed in the NPRM, it program definition and one match- the ultimate indicator of perfor- will take several years for incident ing a common national definition. mance, but that it will take years to data to indicate any trend as a re- The stakeholder groups concluded see trends in this data. The NPRM sult of the actions required by this that this data could serve its pur- stated that the proposed perfor- rule. PHMSA considers it neces- pose even if there were some in- mance measures would provide a sary to collect additional perfor- consistency in the data reported to measurement during the interim pe- mance measures to permit prelimi- PHMSA and that the additional riod while these trends are develop- nary judgments concerning the ef- burden involved for some operators ing and invited the public to sug- fectiveness of this regulation in the using two definitions was not justi- gest other measures for this interim interim. This does not mean that fied. PHMSA agrees. The final rule period. In response, one operator these measures are not “perma- clarifies, as did the proposal, that commented that there should be no nent.” The final rule retains the re- what is meant by a “ticket” is re- interim measures, only permanent. quirement to submit performance ceipt by the operator of information Another operator, apparently re- measures in the annual report. from the notification center, reflecting the same concern about po- d. A citizens group commented gardless of the criteria the center tential changes in reporting require- that key information, such as haz- uses to decide when notifications ments, suggested that performance ardous leaks repaired by cause and should be made. measures, once in place, should re- material, must be publicly avail- main stable for at least 5 years. The able. NAPSR and the Pennsylvania operators noted that time is needed PSC also suggested that data re- 10 49 Code of Federal Regulations, to determine the effectiveness of ported to PHMSA should be in a Section 192.614(b). such measures and to implement

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 22/42 192-113 192-113 database accessible to states, rather ports based on the information that that there will be some inconsisten- than requiring duplicate reporting. they have available. PHMSA is not cies in reporting of at least one The Arizona Corporation Commis- aware of complaints that unneces- measure (number of excavation sion, taking a contrary position, sary effort has been required sim- tickets); however, the data submit- suggested that reports sent to ply to determine a cause for report- ted with the annual report will be PHMSA should also be required to ing purposes. PHMSA therefore sufficient for PHMSA to evaluate be submitted to States exercising does not consider that any explicit the effectiveness of the regulation. jurisdiction. limitation is necessary on the infor- PHMSA does not consider that PHMSA response: All IM per- mation to be used to identify the further guidance is necessary to as- formance measures submitted to cause of repaired leaks. sure that operators are collecting PHMSA will be part of the annual f. An operator suggested that other performance measure data report filed by distribution pipeline specific causes to which leaks are uniformly, as that data will be used operators. Annual report informa- to be attributed should be listed, by individual operators to evaluate tion is available to the public via and further that the list of causes the effectiveness of their programs. the PHMSA web site. In addition, must include “unknown.” The op- An individual operator should col- we are requiring operators to report erator suggested that meaningful lect and use the data it collects con- performance measure information comparisons require a limited num- sistently; however, differences be- to states exercising jurisdiction. ber of specified causes. The opera- tween operators do not matter. e. NAPSR and Iowa suggested tor also noted that lines are often Comment Topic 24: Regulato- that the number of leaks repaired/ retired in place rather than being ry analysis. replaced by material be added as a removed, and that the cause of We received a number of com- national performance measure, as leaks is thus not always known. ments concerning the regulatory this is useful information relevant PHMSA response: Perfor- analysis to the effectiveness of IM. These mance reporting will be via the an- supporting the proposed rule: In re- commenters also suggested that the nual report. The annual report cur- sponse to a question about whether requirement to report information rently requires that operators report the proposed performance mea- concerning leaks be limited to in- leaks repaired by cause. It lists a sures were burdensome, two com- formation that is known or avail- number of causes for this purpose, menters stated they were not. Other able. They noted that operators including “other.” Any revisions to commenters raised specific issues may not excavate leaking pipe, but the form for purposes of IM perfor- regarding the regulatory analysis. may replace it and retire leaking mance measures will similarly pro- a. Assumptions used in the sections in place. In that instance, vide a list of causes. See the annual analysis. they may not know the cause of the report comment topic for more in- NAPSR, AGA, an operator as- leak, or the particular material on formation regarding changes to the sociation, and an individual opera- which it occurred (e.g., whether on annual reporting form. tor commented that assumptions pipe body or a valve/fitting). g. NAPSR, Iowa, and one op- made in the analysis are not sup- PHMSA response: The stake- erator suggested that we clarify ported. In particular, the assump- holder groups considered the use of tion that implementing the pro- any additional measures de- leaks-by-material as a national per- “ ” posed rule will result in a 50 performance measure but rejected it as scribed in proposed §192.1007(e) cent reduction in incidents, which a measure in part because of the (1)(vii) are additional measures the is key to the analysis of the benefits potential for misinterpretation. operator selects. of the proposal, appears to have no Many leaks are caused by excava- PHMSA response: PHMSA foundation. tion damage or other outside has made this clarification. PHMSA response: It is not forces, in which case the pipe ma- h. One operator suggested that possible to determine precisely the terial is not of principal impor- PHMSA should establish guidance effectiveness of a new regulation tance. The groups concluded that for implementing uniform metrics, before it is implemented. It is this would be useful information since these are needed for a perfor- therefore necessary to make as- for operators in evaluating the ef- mance-based process. sumptions for purposes of analysis. fectiveness of their own programs PHMSA response: PHMSA The analysis then includes an eval- but that it should not be reported on will use four measures to evaluate uation of the sensitivity of its con- a national basis. PHMSA agrees. the overall effectiveness of this clusions to those assumptions. PHMSA notes that operators regulation. These measures are Here, PHMSA expects that the reg- have been required to report the specified in this rule, will be listed ulation will help ensure the integri- number of leaks eliminated/re- on the revised annual report form, ty of distribution pipelines and will paired, by cause, for many years as and will be in the instructions for reduce the number and severity of part of their annual reports. Opera- completing the annual report. As incidents that occur on these pipe- tors have presumably filed these re- discussed above, PHMSA expects lines. An assumption of a 20 per-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 23/42 192-113 192-113 cent to 50 percent reduction in inci- and that some States have deregu- rule and has concluded that the rule dents was made for purposes of lated this function. is cost-beneficial. analysis, but that assumption is not PHMSA response: PHMSA PHMSA recognizes that State critical to the conclusions. The fi- recognizes that utility regulatory regulatory programs will be re- nal regulatory impact analysis commissions consider market quired to undertake new work as a demonstrates,11 in fact, that societal forces in their rate regulating activ- result of this rule. PHMSA sup- costs associated with gas distribu- ities and that some aspects of natu- ports State pipeline safety pro- tion need only be reduced by about ral gas supply have been deregulat- grams through grants and is in- 12.2 percent in the first year and ed in some States. Nevertheless, creasing the level of that support. 9.5 percent in successive years for distribution of natural gas has not States exercise regulatory authority the rule to yield positive net bene- been completely deregulated in any over intrastate pipelines once they fits. areas of which PHMSA is aware– are certified by PHMSA to do so. b. Lost gas. i.e., a customer does not have a e. Burden hour estimate. AGA and an operator noted choice of multiple suppliers for A consultant noted that the es- that assumptions concerning lost natural gas delivered to its resi- timate in the regulatory analysis of gas are not supported. They refer to dence or place of business. Thus, [frac14] hour for master meter op- the stakeholder report where the PHMSA considers that the state- erators to update their programs is difficulties of measuring lost gas ment made was accurate. It did not unrealistic. He believes that 4 hours are discussed. That report states affect the conclusions of the analy- is a better estimate for such an up- that reported “lost gas” often re- sis. date. flects measurement uncertainties d. Cost effective. PHMSA response: The regula- rather than actual losses. FL PSC suggested that the pro- tory analysis and the paperwork re- PHMSA response: Whether posal is not cost effective, noted duction act burdens have been re- the amount of lost gas can be mea- that recent regulatory extensions calculated based on comments to sured with accuracy does not affect have been extensive, and suggested the NPRM. PHMSA has revised whether gas is actually lost. PHM- we review the current regulations, the estimate to twelve hours per SA understands that the amount of in total, before proposing more. year for master meter operators to lost gas reported may depend as They pointed to a rate case in update their programs. much on measurement uncertain- which a company is requesting Comment Topic 25: IM for ties as on actual losses, but con- $750,000 to implement distribution new pipelines. cludes that actual loss does occur. IM for a system containing 10,000 The Missouri Public Service This rule will have the effect of im- miles of distribution mains, and Commission noted that the pro- proving leak management, and that applying the unit rate to the to- posed rule provides many require- damage prevention. The require- tal mileage of distribution mains in ments to address the integrity of ment that excess flow valves be in- the U.S. would result in an estimat- existing distribution pipeline sys- stalled will reduce the amount of ed implementation cost of nearly tems but is silent on the need to as- gas released if a service line is $84 million. This would equate to sure integrity for new installations. damaged by excavation. All of more than $3.8 million per death Missouri suggested the rule address these actions will reduce the averted if all deaths resulting from how well a pipeline system is amount of gas lost. PHMSA has re- accidents on distribution systems built/constructed/installed, which is lied on information from the EPA could be eliminated, which they critical to its integrity. Missouri for its assumptions concerning lost contend is not a practical assump- also suggested adding increased in- gas, and considers that the estimat- tion. FL PSC also commented that spection requirements for contrac- ed reduction of 10 percent cited in State regulators are overburdened tors performing new installations to the regulatory impact analysis is and cannot do more than they are assure the integrity of new pipe- reasonable. now. lines being installed, and to not in- c. Competitive market. PHMSA response: It is unclear stall pipelines today that will create AGA, an operator association, what basis an operator would have integrity issues in the future. and an operator disagreed with our used for a rate case addressing im- PHMSA response: PHMSA conclusion that local gas distribu- plementation of distribution IM at agrees that good installation/con- tion is not a competitive market. the time of the NPRM, since re- struction is important to assuring They noted that utility commis- quirements for that purpose were pipeline integrity. This proposal, sions consider all market forces not final. This final rule makes sig- however, deals with assuring the nificant changes from the NPRM, integrity of existing pipeline sys- most of which will have the effect tems. Construction is addressed by 11 Final Regulatory Impact Analy- of reducing costs. PHMSA has ana- other regulations for which changes sis, “Summary and Conclusions”, lyzed the costs and benefits that are were not proposed as part of this p. 61. expected to result from this final rulemaking. PHMSA may consider

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 24/42 192-113 192-113 changes to construction regulations stated that “overall, the NPRM such a requirement can be justified as part of future rulemaking activi- provides a reasonable and logical on a cost-benefit basis. ties. approach that operators of distribu- The arguments for installing Comment Topic 26: Annual re- tion pipelines can use to develop EFVs are that they are effective in port form. and implement integrity manage- preventing accidents caused by sig- One operator suggested that ment plans.” The NTSB also iden- nificant damage to a downstream PHMSA should develop its report- tified three areas in which they service line and that they are inex- ing forms by working in conjunc- concluded the proposed rule should pensive to install (when the line is tion with AGA and APGA. be improved. newly installed or excavated for PHMSA response: All data re- The NTSB considers that an other reasons). The contrary argu- quired to be reported will be report- effective leak management pro- ment is that an EFV protects only ed via the annual report. PHMSA gram, as required in this rule, must the service line in which it is in- has revised the annual report form provide for use of equipment that stalled and incidents causing signif- using its normal procedure, which prevents or mitigates leaks. The icant damage to a service line are included consultation with the trade Board sees EFVs as equipment that rare. Thus, a large number of EFVs associations. should be used for this purpose. must be installed, at a large cumu- This final rule requires opera- The NTSB acknowledges that the lative expense, before one can say tors to report four integrity man- proposed rule's requirements for in- with confidence that it is likely that agement performance measures as stallation of EFVs implement the the presence of the installed valves part of the annual report. The rule mandate in the PIPES Act of 2006, will prevent an accident. also requires operators to report, as but considers that it should go far- The potential consequences of part of the annual report, detailed ther. The NTSB recommends that accidents involving service line information regarding compression the rule require the installation of damage at multi-family or commer- coupling failures. One of the per- EFVs on all new and replaced cus- cial properties are likely larger than formance measures–total number tomer service lines, regardless of those that would result from acci- of leaks eliminated or repaired, cat- customer classification. This would dents on a service line serving a egorized by cause–is already a part include multi-family dwellings single-family residence. The likeli- of the annual report form; however, (e.g., apartment buildings) and hood that an individual service line the other information to be reported commercial properties. This is con- would be damaged remains, how- will require modifications to the sistent with a recommendation the ever, small, and the likelihood that annual report form. Therefore, NTSB made in 2001 following in- an EFV would prevent an accident PHMSA is issuing, in conjunction vestigation of a pipeline accident. at an individual installation is cor- with this rulemaking, a 60-day no- We have considered require- respondingly small. There are far tice to modify the annual report in- ments for installation of EFVs for fewer multi-family and commercial formation collection, OMB Control many years. PHMSA has conduct- properties than there are single- Number 2137-0522. PHMSA seeks ed two cost-benefit studies. These family residences. This could re- comment on the proposed modified studies reached contrary conclu- duce the likelihood that an EFV annual report form. sions on whether a requirement to would be expected to prevent an install EFVs was cost beneficial accident at such a property so that a III. National Transportation and demonstrated that the conclu- cost-benefit analysis would con- Safety Board sion on whether EFV installation is clude that requiring installation of cost-beneficial is highly sensitive the valves is not justified. Before The National Transportation to the assumptions and data used in imposing such a requirement, Safety Board (NTSB) is an inde- the analysis. The PIPES Act re- PHMSA would need to collect data pendent agency that investigates quired that PHMSA include in this from manufacturers of larger EFVs major transportation accidents, in- final rule a requirement to install and from operators who currently cluding those occurring on pipe- EFVs on new and replaced service install such valves and conduct a lines. The NTSB makes recom- lines serving single-family resi- detailed cost-benefit analysis. mendations to PHMSA when it dences. This addresses the vast ma- These actions have not been com- concludes from investigation of jority of gas distribution service pleted, and PHMSA has not ex- pipeline accidents that additional lines, and this requirement has been panded the requirement in this final regulatory actions would be appro- included in this final rule. PHMSA rule beyond the mandate in the priate to improve safety. has not studied separately the re- PIPES Act. The NTSB submitted com- quired installation of EFVs on The NTSB also recommended ments on this rulemaking on No- properties other than single-family that the final rule be revised to ad- vember 19, 2008. The NTSB sup- residences and is uncertain whether dress more explicitly the risks from ported the approach to distribution compression couplings. The Board IM being taken by PHMSA and noted that it has investigated a

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 25/42 192-113 192-113 number of accidents caused by pipe SA (see comment topic 1 above). The TPSSC is a statutorily mandat- pulling out of compression cou- PHMSA will consider the data ed advisory committee that advises plings, and that several states have from these reports to decide PHMSA about the technical feasi- taken actions to require replace- whether additional requirements bility, reasonableness and cost-ef- ment or other actions to assure that relative to compression couplings fectiveness of its proposed regula- compression coupling joints are are warranted. Any additional re- tions. PHMSA discussed some of safe. The NTSB recommended that quirements related to compression the key comments received in re- the rule include specific guidance couplings would be outside the sponse to the NPRM, e.g., burden- on how to identify and address scope of the proposed rule. some documentation requirements, problem compression couplings. Finally, the NTSB recom- performance through people, plas- PHMSA agrees that there are mended that the rule include spe- tic pipe failure reporting and excess reasons for concern regarding com- cific requirements that operators flow valves. These comments have pression couplings. PHMSA issued address risks from directional been previously discussed in this an advisory bulletin on this subject drilling. PHMSA has not made this document. on February 28, 2008. The NTSB change for the same reasons as de- After careful consideration, the acknowledged that this bulletin scribed above for compression cou- TPSSC voted unanimously to find should help utilities identify future plings. Directional drilling is a type the NPRM (with proposed changes problems, but expressed concern of excavation damage, a threat cat- as discussed at the meeting) and that it is only advisory and that op- egory operators are required to supporting regulatory evaluation erators are not required to imple- consider. We expect that GPTC technically feasible, reasonable, ment its suggestions. will provide guidance on consider- practicable, and cost effective. A PHMSA will encourage GPTC ing the threat of directional drilling. transcript of the teleconference is to review its guidance with respect available in the docket for this rule- to compression couplings and to IV. Advisory Committee making. The following tables sum- improve that guidance, if needed. marize the major changes discussed PHMSA has revised this final rule On December 12, 2008, PHM- at the meeting. to require that operators report in- SA discussed the proposed rule formation on coupling failures as with the Technical Pipeline Safety part of their annual report to PHM- Standards Committee (TPSSC).

Burdensome plan documentation requirements NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language §192.1015 What records must an opera- Limit documentation requirements to §192.1011 What records must an tor keep? those in §192.1005 and §192.1007 operator keep? Except for the performance measures An operator must maintain records records required in § 192.1007, an op- Greatly reduce requirements in demonstrating compliance with the erator must maintain, for the useful life §192.1015; focus on wording similar requirements of this subpart for at of the pipeline, records demonstrating to §192.1015(e) least 10 years. This must include compliance with the requirements of copies of superseded integrity man- this subpart. At a minimum, an operator Clarify requirement to retain record of agement plans developed under this must maintain the following records for past versions of written IM program subpart. review during an inspection: (a) A written IM program in accordance Language: with §192.1005; §192.1015 What records must an op- (b) Documents supporting threat identi- erator keep? fication; (a) General records. Operator must (c) A written procedure for ranking the maintain records demonstrating com- threats; pliance with the requirements of this (d) Documents to support any decision, subpart for 10 years. This must in- analysis, or process developed and used clude copies of superseded IM plans. to implement and evaluate each element of the IM program; (e) Records identifying changes made to the IM program, or its elements, in-

Burdensome plan documentation requirements cluding a description of the change and the reason it was made; and (f) Records on performance measures. However, an operator must only retain records of performance measures for ten years.

Reporting plastic pipe failures

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language §192.1009 What must an operator re- Delete requirement §192.1009 What must an operator port when plastic pipe fails? Continue to rely on PPDC report when compression couplings Each operator must report information Promote broad communication of fail? relating to each material failure of plas- more expansive set of PPDC lessons Each operator must report, on an an- tic pipe (including fittings, couplings, Retain reporting of compression cou- nual basis, information related to valves and joints) no later than 90 days plings failure failure of compression couplings, after failure. This information must in- excluding those that result only in clude, at a minimum, location of the Language: non-hazardous leaks, as part of the failure in the system, nominal pipe size, §192.1009 What must an operator re- annual report required by §191.11 material type, nature of failure includ- port when compression couplings beginning with the report submitted ing any contribution of local pipeline faill? March 15, 2011. This information environment, pipe manufacturer, lot must include, at a minimum, loca- number and date of manufacture, and Each operator must report information tion of the failure in the system, other information that can be found in relating to each failure of compression nominal pipe size, material type, na- markings on the failed pipe. An opera- couplings annually by March 15, to ture of failure including any contri- tor must send the information report as PHMSA as part of the annual report bution of local pipeline environ- indicated in §192.1013. An operator required by § 191.11 beginning with ment, coupling manufacturer, lot must also report this information to the the report submitted March 15, 20xx number and date of manufacture, State pipeline safety authority in the [Date to depend on when final rule is and other information that can be State where the gas distribution pipe- issued]. found in markings on the failed cou- line is located. pling. An operator also must report this information to the state pipeline safety authority if a state exercises jurisdiction over the operator’s pipeline.

Performance through people

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language (b) …In considering the threat of inap- Delete requirement, including refer- Requirement deleted, including ref- propriate operation, the operator must ence to “one call.” erence to “one call.” evaluate the contribution of human error to risk and the potential role of peo- Language: (d) Identify and implement mea- ple in preventing and mitigating the im- (d) Identify and implement measures sures to address risks. Determine pact of events contributing to risk. This to address risks. Determine and imple- and implement measures designed evaluation must also consider the con- ment measures designed to reduce the to reduce the risks from failure of its tribution of existing DOT requirements risks from failure of its gas distribu- gas distribution pipeline. These applicable to the operator’s system tion pipeline system. These measures measures must include an effective (e.g., Operator Qualification, Drug and must include an effective leak man- leak management program (unless Alcohol Testing) in mitigating risk. agement program (unless all leaks are all leaks are repaired when found). repaired when found) and a damage … (d) Identify and implement measures to prevention program required under (f) Periodic Evaluation and Im- address risks. Determine and imple- §192.614 of this part. provement. An operator must re-e- ment measures designed to reduce the … valuate threats and risks on its entire risks from failure of its gas distribution (f) Periodic Evaluation and Improve- pipeline and consider the relevance pipeline system. These measures must ment. An operator must continually of threats in one location to other ar- include implementing an effective leak re-evaluate threats and risks on its en- eas. Each operator must determine management program and enhancing tire system and consider the relevance the appropriate period for conduct- the operator’s damage prevention pro- of threats in one location to other ar- ing complete program evaluations gram required under §192.614 of this eas. In addition, each operator must based on the complexity of its sys- part. To address risks posed by inap- periodically evaluate the effectiveness tem and changes in factors affecting propriate operation, an operator’s writ- of its program for assuring individual the risk of failure. An operator must ten IM program must contain a separate performance to reassess the contribu- conduct a complete program reeval- section with a heading ‘Assuring Indi- tion of human error to risk and to uation at least every five years. The vidual Performance’. In that section, an identify opportunities to intervene to operator must consider the results of operator must list risk management reduce further the human contribution the performance monitoring in these measures to evaluate and manage the to risk (e.g., improve targeting of evaluations. contribution of human error and inter- damage prevention efforts). Each op- vention to risk (e.g., changes to the role erator must determine the appropriate or expertise of people), and implement period for conducting complete pro- measures appropriate to address the gram evaluations based on the com- risk. In addition, this section of the plexity of its system and changes in written IM program must consider ex- factors affecting the risk of failure. An isting programs the operator has imple- operator must conduct a complete pro- mented to comply with § 192.614 gram reevaluation at least every five (damage prevention programs); § years. The operator must consider the 192.616 (public awareness); Subpart N results of the performance monitoring of this Part (qualification of pipeline in these evaluations. personnel), and 49 CFR Part 199 (drug and alcohol testing).

Definition of “damage”

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language Damage means any impact or exposure Define “excavation damage” building Excavation Damage means any im- resulting in the repair or replacement of on the definition in DIRT - increases pact that results in the need to repair an underground facility, related appur- clarity of reporting requirement or replace an underground facility tenance, or materials supporting the due to a weakening, or the partial or pipeline. Language: complete destruction, of the facility, Excavation Damage means any impact including, but not limited to, the or exposure that results in the need to protective coating, lateral support, repair or replace an underground facil- cathodic protection or the housing ity due to the weakening or the partial for the line device or facility. or complete destruction of the facility, including, but not limited to, the protective coating, lateral support, cathodic protection or the housing for the line device or facility.

Implementation requirements

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language § 192.1005 What must a gas distribu- Retain same period § 192.1005 What must a gas distri- tion operator (other than a master meter bution operator (other than a master or LPG operator) do to implement this Language: meter or small LPG operator) do to subpart? § 192.1005 What must a gas distribu- implement this subpart? (a) Dates. No later than [INSERT tion operator (other than a master me- No later than [INSERT DATE 18 DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER PUBLI- ter or LPG operator) do to implement MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE CATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN this subpart? DATE OF FINAL RULE] a gas dis- THE Federal Register] an operator of a (a) Dates. No later than [INSERT tribution operator must develop and gas distribution pipeline must develop DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER PUBLI- implement an integrity management and fully implement a written IM pro- CATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN program that includes a written in- gram. The IM program must contain THE Federal Register] an operator of tegrity management plan as speci- the elements described in § 192.1007. a gas distribution pipeline must devel- fied in § 192.1007. (b) Procedures. An operator’s program op and fully implement a written IM must have written procedures describ- program. The IM program must con- ing the processes for developing, im- tain the elements described in § plementing and periodically improving 192.1007. each of the required elements. (b) Procedures. An operator’s program must have written procedures for developing, implementing and periodically improving the required elements.

Alternative intervals for periodic actions

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language § 192.1017 When may an operator de- Clarify intent as to responsibility for § 192.1013 When may an operator viate from required periodic inspections decision on waiver requests (States deviate from required periodic in- under this part? approve, no PHMSA review) spections under this part? (a) An operator may propose to reduce (a) An operator may propose to re- the frequency of periodic inspections Need to make sure that it is clear that duce the frequency of periodic in- and tests required in this part on the ba- overall level of safety is increased – spections and tests required in this sis of the engineering analysis and risk not the level of safety on that particu- part on the basis of the engineering assessment required by this subpart. lar line is equal or higher. analysis and risk assessment re- Operators may propose reductions only quired by this subpart. where they can demonstrate that the re- System level rather than individual (b) An operator must submit its pro- duced frequency will not significantly line. posal to the PHMSA Associate Ad- increase risk. ministrator for Pipeline Safety or, in (b) An operator must submit its propos- Language: the case of an intrastate pipeline fa- al to the PHMSA Associate Adminis- §192.1017 When may an operator de- cility regulated by the State, the ap- trator for Pipeline Safety or the State viate from required periodic inspec- propriate State agency. The applica- agency responsible for oversight of the tions under this part? ble oversight agency may accept the operator’s system. PHMSA, or the ap- (a) An operator may propose to reduce proposal on its own authority, with plicable State oversight agency, may the frequency of periodic inspections or without conditions and limita- accept the proposal, with or without and tests required in this part on the tions, on a showing that the opera- conditions and limitations, on a show- basis of the engineering analysis and tor’s proposal, which includes the ing that the adjusted interval provides a risk assessment required by this sub- adjusted interval, will provide an satisfactory level of pipeline safety. part. Operators may propose reduc- equal or greater overall level of tions only where they can demonstrate safety. that the reduced frequency will not (c) An operator may implement an significantly increase risk. approved reduction in the frequency (b) An operator must submit its pro- of a periodic inspection or test only posal to the PHMSA Associate Ad- where the operator has developed ministrator for Pipeline Safety or, in and implemented an integrity man- the case of an intrastate pipeline facili- agement program that provides an ty regulated by the State, the appropri- equal or improved overall level of ate State agency. The applicable state safety despite the reduced frequency oversight agency may accept the pro- of periodic inspections. posal on its own authority, with or without conditions and limitations, on a showing that the adjusted interval provides a satisfactory level of pipeline safety.

Program requirements for master meters and LPG operators

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language (1) Infrastructure knowledge. The oper- Retain separate treatment; revise (1) Knowledge. The operator must ator must demonstrate knowledge of wording to include the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of its pipe- the system’s infrastructure, which, to “rank risks” line, which, to the extent known, the extent known, should include the should include the approximate lo- approximate location and material of its Language: cation and material of its pipeline. distribution system. The operator must (1) Infrastructure knowledge. The op- The operator must identify addition- identify additional information needed erator must demonstrate knowledge of al information needed and provide a and provide a plan for gaining knowl- the system’s infrastructure, which, to plan for gaining knowledge over edge over time through normal activi- the extent known, should include the time through normal activities con- ties. approximate location and material of ducted on the pipeline (for example, (2) Identify threats. The operator must its distribution system. The operator design, construction, operations or consider, at minimum, the following must identify additional information maintenance activities). categories of threats (existing and po- needed and provide a plan for gaining (2) Identify threats. The operator tential): corrosion, natural forces, exca- knowledge over time through normal must consider, at minimum, the fol- vation damage, other outside force activities. lowing categories of threats (exist- damage, material or weld failure, (2) Identify threats. The operator must ing and potential): corrosion, natural equipment malfunction and inappropri- consider, at minimum, the following forces, excavation damage, other ate operation. categories of threats (existing and po- outside force damage, material or (3) Identify and implement measures to tential): corrosion, natural forces, ex- weld failure, equipment failure, and mitigate risks. The operator must deter- cavation damage, other outside force incorrect operation. mine and implement measures designed damage, material or weld failure, (3) Rank risks. The operator must to reduce the risks from failure of its equipment malfunction and inappro- evaluate the risks to its pipeline and pipeline system. priate operation. estimate the relative importance of (4) Measure performance, monitor re- (3) Rank risks. The operator must each identified threat. sults, and evaluate effectiveness. The evaluate the risks to its system and es- (4) Identify and implement mea- operator must develop and monitor per- timate the relative importance of each sures to mitigate risks. The operator formance measures on the number of identified threat. must determine and implement mea- leaks eliminated or repaired on its pipe- (4) Identify and implement measures sures designed to reduce the risks line system and their causes. to mitigate risks. The operator must from failure of its pipeline. (5) Periodic evaluation and improve- determine and implement measures (5) Measure performance, monitor ment. The operator must determine the designed to reduce the risks from fail- results, and evaluate effectiveness. appropriate period for conducting IM ure of its pipeline system. The operator must monitor, as a per- program evaluations based on the com- (5) Measure performance, monitor re- formance measure, the number of plexity of its system and changes in sults, and evaluate effectiveness. The leaks eliminated or repaired on its factors affecting the risk of failure. An operator must develop and monitor pipeline and their causes. operator must re-evaluate its entire pro- performance measures on the number (6) Periodic evaluation and im- gram at least every five years. The op- of leaks eliminated or repaired on its provement. The operator must de- erator must consider the results of the pipeline system and their causes. termine the appropriate period for performance monitoring in these evalu- (6) Periodic evaluation and improve- conducting IM program evaluations ations. ment. The operator must determine the based on the complexity of its pipe- appropriate period for conducting IM line and changes in factors affecting program evaluations based on the the risk of failure. An operator must complexity of its system and changes re-evaluate its entire program at in factors affecting the risk of failure. least every five years. The operator An operator must re-evaluate its entire must consider the results of the per- program at least every five years. The formance monitoring in these evalu- operator must consider the results of ations. the performance monitoring in these evaluations..

Excess flow valve requirement

NPRM Language TAC Recommendation Final Rule Language § 192.1011 When must an Excess Flow Move provision to Subpart H this will § 192.383 Excess flow valve instal- Valve (EFV) be installed? lead to requiring implementation by lation. (a) General requirements. This section MM; (a) Definitions. As used in this sec- only applies to new or replaced service Explicitly address EFV installation re- tion: lines serving single-family residences. quirement on branch service lines -- Replaced service line means a natu- An EFV installation must comply with- clarify that EFVs are required for ser- ral gas service line where the fitting the requirements in §192.381. vice lines servicing single family resi- that connects the service line to the (b) Installation required. The operator dences main is replaced or the piping con- must install an EFV on the service line nected to this fitting is replaced. installed or entirely replaced after [IN- Language: Service line serving single-family SERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUB- § 192.383 Excess flow valve installa- residence means a natural gas ser- LICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN tion. vice line that begins at the fitting THE Federal Register], unless one or that connects the service line to the more of the following conditions is (a) Definitions. As used in this sec- main and serves only one single- present: tion: family residence. (1) The service line does not operate at Replaced service line means a natural (b) Installation required. An excess a pressure of 10 psig or greater gas service line where the fitting that flow valve (EFV) installation must throughout the year; connects the service line to the main comply with the performance stan- (2) The operator has prior experience line is replaced or the piping connect- dards in § 192.381. The operator with contaminants in the gas stream ed to this fitting is replaced. must install an EFV on any new or that could interfere with the EFV’s op- Service line serving single-family resi- replaced service line serving a sin- eration or cause loss of service to a res- dence means a natural gas service line gle-family residence after [INSERT idence; beginning at the fitting that connects EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL (3) An EFV could interfere with neces- the service line to the main and serv- RULE], unless one or more of the sary operation or maintenance activi- ing only one single-family residence. following conditions is present: ties, such as blowing liquids from the (b) Installation required. An EFV in- (1) The service line does not operate line; or stallation must comply with the per- at a pressure of 10 psig or greater (4) An EFV meeting performance re- formance standards in §192.381. The throughout the year; quirements in § 192.381 is not com- operator must install an EFV on new (2) The operator has prior experi- mercially available to the operator. or replaced service lines serving sin- ence with contaminants in the gas gle-family residences after [INSERT stream that could interfere with the EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL EFV’s operation or cause loss of RULE], unless one or more of the fol- service to a residence; lowing conditions is present: (3) An EFV could interfere with (1) The service line does not operate necessary operation or maintenance at a pressure of 10 psig or greater activities, such as blowing liquids throughout the year; from the line; or (2) The operator has prior experience (4) An EFV meeting performance with contaminants in the gas stream standards in § 192.381 is not com- that could interfere with the EFV’s op- mercially available to the operator. eration or cause loss of service to a (c) Reporting. Each operator must, residence; on an annual basis, report the num- (3) An EFV could interfere with nec- ber of EFVs installed pursuant to essary operation or maintenance activ- this section as part of the annual re- ities, such as blowing liquids from the port required by §191.11. line; or (4) An EFV meeting performance requirements in §192.381 is not commercially available to the operator.

The final rule revises 49 CFR V. Final Rule Part 192 to add integrity management requirements applicable to

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 33/42 192-113 192-113 distribution pipelines. This address- ments applicable to distribution standards that are not mandated by es statutory mandates and builds on pipeline integrity management. Federal regulation. previous similar requirements es- A definition for “integrity tablished for gas transmission pipe- Section 192.1001. What definitions management plan” is added. An in- lines. The final rule also adds a re- apply to this subpart? tegrity management plan is a writ- quirement that operators install exten explanation of the mechanisms cess flow valves (EFV) on all new This section adds a definition the operator will use to implement and replaced residential service for “excavation damage,” which is its integrity management program lines serving single residences, as one of the performance measures and to ensure compliance with this required by the PIPES Act. that operators must report to PHM- rule. SA as part of their annual reports. A definition for “small LPG Section-by-Section Analysis A common definition for this term operators is added. The new rule is needed to assure consistency in ” Section 192.383. Excess flow valve the data collected and thus the abil- requires LPG operators with LPG installation ity for PHMSA to analyze the ef- distribution systems serving 100 or fectiveness of these regulations. more customers to comply with the This section currently requires The definition is based on the defi- full integrity management program that operators notify new customers nition of damage used by the Com- requirements. Small LPG opera- of the availability of excess flow mon Ground Alliance for its Dam- tors, those with LPG distribution valves (EFV) and install a valve if age Information Reporting Tool systems serving less than 100 cus- the customer agrees to pay for the (DIRT), a voluntary program used tomers from a single source must installation and any subsequent by some distribution pipeline oper- comply with the same requirements maintenance costs. This require- ators to collect data on damages to as master meter operators. ment has been superseded by the underground facilities. Section 192.1003. What do the reg- statutory mandate that PHMSA re- A definition of the term “haz- quire operators to install such ulations in this subpart cover? ardous leak is added. The new valves in all new and replaced resi- ” dential service lines serving single- rule will require operators to report This section describes the con- family residences. This section is annually the number of hazardous tent of the new subpart and speci- revised to replace the notification leaks repaired. Commenters have fies which operators must comply requirement with the new require- correctly noted that a consistent with which sections. Master meter ment to install. Installation is not definition will be important to as- operators and small LPG operators required if operating pressure is suring that this data is useful. Sev- are not required to meet all of the less than 10 psig, if the operator eral comments suggested that requirements applicable to other has experience with contaminants PHMSA adopt the Gas Piping operators of distribution pipelines. that would interfere with valve op- Technology Committee's (GPTC) The content of IM programs re- eration, if an EFV is likely to inter- Guide definition for a Grade 1 leak. quired of these operators is similar fere with necessary operation or This definition is already used by (described below), but somewhat maintenance activities, or if an many operators to define hazardous simpler. Documentation require- EFV meeting the performance stan- leaks. PHMSA has followed the ments for these operators are dif- dards of §192.381 is not commer- suggestion of the comments. The ferent, consistent with their treat- cially available. The revised sec- change to this section adds a defini- ment in the rest of Part 192. tion also requires that each operator tion similar to that of the GPTC report the number of EFVs in- Guide for Grade 1 leaks. Section 192.1005. What must a gas stalled during each year in the an- A definition for “integrity distribution operator (other than a nual report already required management program” is added. master meter or small LPG opera- (§192.11). An integrity management program, tor) do to implement this subpart? A definition for “service line as used within this rule, is an overall approach by an operator to en- This section requires operators serving single-family residence” is of gas distribution pipelines and of added. sure the integrity of its distribution system. The program includes an LPG distribution pipelines serving 100 or more customers from a sin- Subpart P–Gas Distribution integrity management plan, which is revised periodically. The pro- gle source to develop and imple- Pipeline Integrity Management ment an IM program no later than (IM) gram also encompasses compliance with other relevant regulations. For 18 months after the effective date some operators, the program may of this final rule. PHMSA recog- A new subpart P is added that nizes that IM programs are likely to includes all of the new require- involve the selection of certain materials or adherence to professional improve as operators gain experi-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 34/42 192-113 192-113 ence. This does not mean, however, initial IM plan. Operators must but that would produce significant that it is acceptable for programs identify these gaps and the addi- consequences may be a higher risk developed and implemented within tional information needed to im- than an accident with somewhat 18 months to be incomplete. Those prove their understanding. Opera- greater likelihood but that cannot programs should address all re- tors are required to provide a plan produce major consequences. quired elements. PHMSA expects for gaining that information over Operators may subdivide their operators to revise their plans, fol- time through its normal activities pipeline into regions for purposes lowing initial implementation, to of operating and maintaining their of this analysis. Such division may reflect lessons that they learn pipeline (e.g., collecting informa- be appropriate when factors rele- through implementing them. tion about buried components when vant to a threat vary within the portions of the pipeline must be ex- pipeline. For example, the threat of Section 192.1007. What are the re- cavated for other reasons). Opera- corrosion is not applicable to por- quired elements of an integrity tors must also develop a process by tions of the pipeline made of plastic management (IM) plan? which the program will be periodi- materials. The corrosion threat cally reviewed and refined, as likely would be of different impor- This section defines the mini- needed. tance to metal portions of the pipe- mum elements that IM plans devel- b. Identify threats. Identifica- line that are coated and cathodical- oped by distribution pipeline operation of the threats that affect, or ly protected than it would be to any tors (other than master meter and could potentially affect, a distribu- portions that are bare or unprotect- small LPG operators) must address. tion pipeline is key to assuring its ed. Operators are not, however, re- A plan must have written proce- integrity. Knowledge of applicable quired to divide their pipelines for dures for developing and imple- threats allows operators to evaluate purposes of analyzing risks. menting the following elements: the risks they pose and to rank d. Identify and implement a. Knowledge. This section re- those risks, allowing safety re- measures to address risks. Opera- quires an operator to develop an sources to be applied where they tor IM programs must include mea- understanding of its distribution will be most effective. sures designed to reduce the risk of pipeline. An operator must identify This section requires that oper- failure from identified threats. the characteristics of its pipeline's ators consider the general cate- These measures must include an ef- design and operations, and of the gories of threats that must now be fective leak management program environment in which it operates, reported on annual reports. Report- (which most operators are already which are necessary to assess ap- ing has been required for many implementing) unless the operator plicable threats and risks. This years, meaning that data are avail- already repairs all leaks when must include considering informa- able regarding these threat cate- found. tion gained from past design, oper- gories. Operators are required to e. Measure performance, mon- ations, and maintenance. consider reasonably available in- itor results, and evaluate effective- This section requires that oper- formation to identify threats that ness. Measuring performance is a ators develop their understanding affect their pipeline or that could key element of IM programs. This from reasonably available informa- potentially affect it (e.g., landslides section requires operators to devel- tion. The rule does not require op- in a hilly area with loose soils even op performance measures, includ- erators to retrieve many years of if no landslide has been experi- ing some that are specified for use archived records or to conduct ad- enced). The section specifies data by all operators. Measuring perfor- ditional investigations (e.g., exca- sources resulting from normal op- mance periodically allows opera- vation) to discover information eration and maintenance that operators to determine whether actions about the pipeline. Operators have tors may consider in evaluating being taken to address threats are considerable knowledge of their threats. effective, or whether different or pipeline to support routine opera- c. Evaluate and rank risk. This additional actions are needed. tions and maintenance, but this in- section requires that an operator f. Periodic Evaluation and Im- formation may be distributed evaluate the identified threats to provement. This element requires throughout the company, in posses- determine their relative importance operators to periodically re-evalu- sion of groups responsible for indi- and rank the risks associated with ate risks on their entire pipeline and vidual functions. Operators must its pipeline. Operators must consid- to consider the relevance of threats assemble this information to the er the likelihood of threats as well in one location to other locations. extent necessary to support devel- as the consequences of a failure Operators must consider the results opment and implementation of that might result from each threat. of their performance monitoring in their IM program. Consideration of consequences is these evaluations, which must be PHMSA recognizes that there important to assure that risks are performed at least once every five may be gaps in the knowledge an properly ranked. A potential acci- years. An operator must determine operator has when it develops its dent of relatively low likelihood an appropriate period for conduct-

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 35/42 192-113 192-113 ing a complete program evaluation The operator's evaluation of This section prescribes IM re- based on the complexity of its sys- threats and risk may identify addi- quirements applicable to these tem. An operator should conduct a tional actions that could be effec- smaller operators. The major ele- program evaluation any time there tive in reducing risk on distribution ments that these operators are re- are changes in factors that would pipelines. This section allows oper- quired to include in their IM plans affect the risk of failure. ators to reduce the frequency of ac- are the same as those in §192.1007 g. Report results. This section tions now required by this Part to applicable to other operators. The requires that operators include in be conducted periodically, to re- details of the elements are simpli- their annual reports some of the align safety resources to better ad- fied somewhat, to reflect both the performance measures required by dress risks. Operators must receive relative simplicity of these pipe- the rule. PHMSA will use this data approval from their safety regulator lines and the limited capability of to evaluate the overall effectiveness (PHMSA or state, as appropriate) the operators. For example, the re- of distribution IM requirements. before they can reduce the required quired knowledge of their pipeline (Note that one of the measures re- frequency, and must demonstrate is focused on the approximate loca- quired to be reported–all leaks re- that the overall effect of their pro- tion and material of which it is con- paired, by cause–has historically posed change will be an equal or structed and required documenta- been required on the annual report). greater level of pipeline safety. tion of this knowledge is limited to This section requires an opera- documents showing the location Section 192.1009. What must an tor to submit a proposal that ex- and material of piping and appurte- operator report when compression plains the desired alternative fre- nances that are installed after the couplings fail? quency for a required periodic in- effective date of their IM programs spection and that explains other ac- and, to the extent known, in exis- Compression couplings are tions the operator will take as part tence when the program becomes mechanical fittings used to connect of the integrity management pro- effective. These operators are not sections of pipe. Such couplings gram to ensure an equal or greater required to submit performance are often used to connect plastic overall level of pipeline safety. A measures, which is consistent with pipe to metal pipe. Failure of com- proposal should include sufficient their prior treatment with respect to pression couplings has resulted in a information to explain how the IM annual reports. number of serious accidents on dis- plan and IM program would be PHMSA expects that the IM tribution pipelines. This section re- modified if the proposal is ap- plans developed by these operators quires that operators report infor- proved. States will use their author- will be simpler than those devel- mation related to failure of com- ity to approve reductions in the fre- oped by operators of more complex pression couplings (excluding fail- quency of safety actions otherwise distribution pipelines. PHMSA is ures that result only in non- required by Part 192. developing guidance suitable for hazardous leaks) on their annual re- use by master meter and small LPG port. PHMSA will use this data to Section 192.1015. What must a operators to develop simple IM evaluate the scope of problems re- master meter or small liquefied pe- plans for their pipelines. This guid- lated to compression couplings and troleum gas (LPG) operator do to ance will be made available via will determine if changes to the implement this subpart? PHMSA's web site after this final regulations are appropriate to help rule is published. prevent incidents caused by cou- Most master meter operators pling failure. are small entities and operating VI. Regulatory Analyses and No- their gas distribution pipelines is tices Section 192.1011. What records not their principal occupation. must an operator keep? These operators typically have lim- A. Statutory/Legal Authority for ited on-staff technical pipeline ex- This Rulemaking This section requires that oper- pertise. These operators have his- ators keep records for 10 years that torically been treated differently This final rule is published un- demonstrate compliance with the within Part 192. In particular, they der the authority of the Federal requirements of this new subpart. have been subject to more limited Pipeline Safety Law (49 U.S.C. The records must include super- documentation requirements. For 60101 et seq.). Section 60102 au- seded copies of IM plans. example, master meter operators thorizes the Secretary of Trans- and operators of LPG distribution portation to issue regulations gov- Section 192.1013. When may an pipelines that serve fewer than 100 erning design, installation, inspec- operator deviate from required pe- customers from a single source are tion, emergency plans and proce- riodic inspections under this part? not required to submit annual re- dures, testing, construction, exten- ports. sion, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities.

The integrity management program The monetized benefits result- Under the Regulatory Flexibil- regulations are issued under this ing from the final rule are estimat- ity Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), authority and address NTSB and ed to be between $165 million and PHMSA must consider whether a DOT Inspector General recommen- $170 million per year. Those bene- rulemaking would have a signifi- dations. This rulemaking also car- fits include: cant effect on a substantial number ries out the mandates regarding dis-  Reductions in the conse- of small entities. The IM program tribution integrity management and quences of reportable incidents requirements in this rule apply to excess flows valves under section 9  Reductions in the conse- gas distribution pipeline operators of the Pipeline Inspection, Protec- quences of non-reportable incidents and require operators of gas distri- tion, Enforcement, and Safety Act  A reduction in the probabili- bution pipelines to develop and im- of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-468, Dec. ty of a major catastrophic incident plement IM plans that will better 29, 2006, codified at 49 U.S.C.  Reductions in lost natural gas assure the integrity of their pipeline §60109(e)).  Reductions in emergency re- systems. sponse costs Many gas distribution pipeline B. Executive Order 12866 and  Reductions in evacuations operators meet the Small Business DOT Regulatory Policies and Pro-  Reductions in dig-ins im- Administration's small business cedures pacting non-gas underground facil- definition of 500 or fewer employ- ities ees for natural gas distribution op- Executive Order 12866 directs  The end of the existing EFV erators under North American In- all Federal agencies to consider the notification requirement dustry Classification System costs and benefits of “significant The costs of the final rule are (NAICS) 221210. PHMSA esti- regulatory actions.” Federal agen- estimated to be $130 million in the mates that the rule will affect ap- cies are directed to develop a for- first year and $101 million in each proximately 9,090 small operators. mal Regulatory Impact Analysis subsequent year. Those costs cov- These small operators can be sepa- consistent with OMB Circular A-4 er: rated into two categories: (1) Local  Development of an IM pro- gas distribution utilities with for all economically significant “ ” gram 12,000 or fewer services and (2) rules, or those rules estimated to  Implementation of the IM master meter and LPG systems. have an impact of $100 million or program (data acquisition and anal- PHMSA estimates there are 1,090 more in any one year. ysis) small operators among the local DOT considers this an “eco-  Mitigation of risks (leak gas distribution utilities with nomically significant” regulatory management, excess flow valve in- 12,000 or fewer services and ap- action under section 3(f)(1) of Ex- stallation and other) proximately 8,000 master meter ecutive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735;  Reporting to PHMSA and and LPG systems, all of which are October 4, 1993). This final rule is State Regulators small. also significant under DOT's regu-  Recordkeeping Furthermore, PHMSA esti- latory policies and procedures (44  Management of the IM pro- mates the rule will cost each of the FR 11034; February 26, 1979). gram. 1,090 small operators and the 52 PHMSA prepared a Regulatory The Regulatory Impact Analy- LPG operators serving 100 or more Evaluation for this final rule and ses (RIA) finds that the rule is not customers from a single source, on placed it in the public docket. expected to adversely affect the average, approximately $33,600 in The rule's requirements would economy or the environment. The the first year and $15,400 in each affect an estimated 9,343 natural analysis finds that, for those costs subsequent year. PHMSA also esti- gas operators with a combined total and benefits that can be quantified, mates that the rule will cost each of of 1,138,000 miles of mains and the present value of net benefits is the 8,000 master meter and small 60,970,000 services. Of these oper- expected to be between $21 million LPG systems, on average, approxi- ators, 201 are large local gas utili- and $1.6 billion over a 50-year pe- mately $2,900 in the first year and ties, 1,090 are small local gas utili- riod after all of the requirements $1,100 in each subsequent year. ties, 52 are LPG operators servic- are implemented. Furthermore, the PHMSA does not have information ing 100 or more customers from a rule is expected yield positive net on the operators' revenues and can- single source, and approximately benefits if it results in eliminating not estimate the economic impact 8,000 are master meter and small only approximately 12.2 percent of the costs will have. The costs asso- LPG systems. PHMSA determined the societal costs the first year, and ciated with the rule may be signifi- that the approximately 1,142 gas about 9.5 percent in subsequent cant for at least some of the small operators and the 8,000 master me- years. entities, if the costs exceed 1 per- ter operators and LPG systems are cent of the revenues. Therefore, small. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act PHMSA believes that the rule could result in a significant adverse

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 37/42 192-113 192-113 economic impact for some of the The other information to be report- which addresses comments to the smallest affected entities. ed will require modifications to the Notice. This Final Rule serves as a PHMSA has minimized costs annual report form. Therefore, 30-day notice for the information for these small operators. As men- PHMSA is also using this rulemak- collection, and PHMSA will for- tioned earlier, small operators' IM ing as a 60-day notice to revise the ward an information collection programs will be subject to more annual report information collec- package for OMB review concur- limited documentation require- tion, OMB Control Number 2137- rent with publication of this final ments. PHMSA is also providing 0522. PHMSA seeks comment on rule. guidance for small operators. Addi- the proposed modified annual re- Each operator, other than mas- tionally, industry is undertaking a port form, which is available in the ter meter operators and small LPG number of initiatives that will help docket for this rulemaking. operators, must also collect and small entities comply with the pro- In addition, the rule also re- record one other specified perfor- posed rule, including the prepara- quires operators to report, as part of mance measure and any other per- tion of guidance materials and a the annual report, detailed informa- formance measures unique to the model IM program for distribution tion regarding compression cou- operator's pipeline that are needed pipeline operators. pling failures. PHMSA has created to evaluate the effectiveness of the a compression coupling failure ad- integrity management program. D. Paperwork Reduction Act dendum to be submitted with the PHMSA estimates these tasks will annual report form, as needed. require an additional 2,289 hours The Paperwork Reduction Act PHMSA also seeks comment on for all 9,343 operators. An explana- of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the proposed compression coupling tion of all burden hour estimates is addresses the collection of informa- failure addendum form. This form contained in the Paperwork Reduc- tion by the Federal government will also be part of the revised tion Act Supporting Statement and from individuals, small businesses 2137-0522 information collection the Regulatory Impact Analysis and state and local governments and is available in the docket for (RIA) available in the docket for and seeks to minimize the burdens this rulemaking. this rulemaking. such information collection re- PHMSA estimates that the ad- quirements might impose. A col- ditional average time required for E. Executive Order 13084 lection of information includes pro- completing the annual report, be- viding answers to identical ques- yond the time that gas distribution This final rule has been ana- tions posed to, or identical report- operators are already expending, is lyzed under principles and criteria ing or record-keeping requirements 6 hours per year per operator. This contained in Executive Order imposed on ten or more persons, results in a burden increase of 13084 (“Consultation and Coordi- other than agencies, instrumentali- 8,058 hours per year for all 1,343 nation with Indian Tribal Govern- ties, or employees of the United operators that have to comply with ments”). Because this rule does not States. In accordance with the re- the annual report requirements. The significantly or uniquely affect quirements of the Paperwork Re- required information can be report- communities of Indian tribal gov- duction Act, agencies may not con- ed electronically. Operators are ernments and does not impose sub- duct or sponsor, and the respondent permitted to keep records in any re- stantial direct compliance costs, the is not required to respond to, an in- trievable form. They may use the funding and consultation require- formation collection unless it dis- latest information technology to re- ments of Executive Order 13084 do plays a currently valid Office of duce the additional information- not apply. Management and Budget (OMB) collection burden. control number. In addition to the reporting re- F. Executive Order 13132 This rule requires operators to quirements, this final rule requires report four distribution integrity each affected operator to develop PHMSA analyzed this final management program (DIMP) per- and maintain a written integrity rule under the principles and crite- formance measures in the annual management plan, which includes ria contained in Executive Order report (Incident and Annual Re- initial plan development, record- 13132 (Federalism). PHMSA is- ports for Gas Pipeline Operators. keeping and updates. These non-re- sues pipeline safety regulations ap- OMB Control Number: 2137- porting requirements are covered plicable to interstate and intrastate 0522). All data required under this by Integrity Management Program pipelines. The requirements in this rule to be reported will be reported for Gas Distribution Pipelines, rule apply to operators of distribu- via the annual report. OMB Control Number: 2137-0625. tion pipeline systems, primarily in- One of the measures required OMB assigned Control Number trastate pipeline systems. Under 49 to be reported–all leaks repaired, 2137-0625 to the information col- U.S.C. 60105, PHMSA cedes au- by cause–has historically been re- lection but withheld approval pend- thority to enforce safety standards quired as part of annual reports. ing publication of this Final Rule,

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 38/42 192-113 192-113 on intrastate pipeline facilities to a of a resolution. PHMSA action is sis. The Environmental Assessment certified state authority. Thus, state consistent with this resolution. is available for review in the Dock- pipeline safety regulatory agencies et. will be the primary enforcer of G. Executive Order 13211 these safety requirements. Al- List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192 though some states have additional This final rule is not a “signifi- requirements that address IM is- cant energy action” under Execu- Integrity management, Pipe- sues, no state requires its distribu- tive Order 13211 (Actions Con- line safety, Reporting and record- tion operators to have comprehen- cerning Regulations That Signifi- keeping requirements. sive IM programs similar to that re- cantly Affect Energy Supply, Dis- quired by this rule. Under 49 tribution, or Use). It is not likely to ■ In consideration of the foregoing, U.S.C. 60107, PHMSA provides have a significant adverse effect on PHMSA is amending Part 192 of grant money to participating states supply, distribution, or energy use. Title 49 of the Code of Federal to carry out their pipeline safety en- Further, the Office of Information Regulations as follows: forcement programs. Although and Regulatory Affairs has not des- some states choose not to partici- ignated this rule as a significant en- PART 192 TRANSPORTATION pate in the pipeline safety grant ergy action. OF NATURAL AND OTHER program, every state has the option GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM to participate. This grant money is H. Unfunded Mandates FEDERAL SAFETY STAN- used to defray added safety pro- DARDS gram costs incurred by enforcing PHMSA estimates that this fi- the requirements. We expect to in- nal rule does impose an unfunded ■ 1. The authority citation for part crease money available to help mandate under the 1995 Unfunded 192 continues to read as follows: states. Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). PHMSA has concluded this PHMSA estimates the rule to cost Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, rule does not include any regula- operators $155.1 million in the first 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, tion that: (1) Has substantial direct year of the regulations, which is 60110, 60113, 60116, 60118, and effects on states, relationships be- higher than the $100 million 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53. tween the national government and threshold (adjusted for inflation, the states, or distribution of power currently estimated to be $141.3 ■ 2. Section 192.383 is revised to and responsibilities among various million) in any one year. The Reg- read as follows: levels of government; (2) imposes ulatory Impact Analysis performed substantial direct compliance costs under EO 12866 requirements also on states and local governments; or meets the analytical requirements §192.383 Excess flow valve in- (3) preempts state law. Therefore, under UMRA, and PHMSA has stallation. the consultation and funding re- concluded the approach taken in quirements of Executive Order this regulation is the least burden- ■ (a) Definitions. As used in this 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, some alternative for achieving our section: 1999) do not apply. rule's objectives. Replaced service line means a This rule preempts any cur- natural gas service line where the rently established state require- I. National Environmental Policy fitting that connects the service line ments in this area. States have the Act to the main is replaced or the pip- ability to augment pipeline safety ing connected to this fitting is re- requirements for pipelines, but are PHMSA analyzed this final placed. not able to approve safety require- rule in accordance with section Service line serving single- ments less stringent than those con- 102(2)(c) of the National Environ- family residence means a natural tained within this rule. mental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. gas service line that begins at the Although the consultation re- 4332), the Council on Environmen- fitting that connects the service line quirements do not apply, the states tal Quality regulations (40 CFR to the main and serves only one have played an integral role in 1500-1508), and DOT Order single-family residence. helping develop these require- 5610.1C, and has determined that (b) Installation required. An ments. State pipeline safety regula- this action will not significantly af- excess flow valve (EFV) installa- tory agencies participated in the fect the quality of the human envi- tion must comply with the perfor- stakeholder groups that helped de- ronment. PHMSA conducted an mance standards in §192.381. The velop the findings on which this Environmental Assessment on the operator must install an EFV on rule is based and provided guid- NPRM and did not receive any any new or replaced service line ance through NARUC in the form comment on the preliminary analy- serving a single-family residence after February 2, 2010, unless one

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 39/42 192-113 192-113 or more of the following conditions Subpart P–Gas Distribution subpart. A master meter operator or is present: Pipeline Integrity Management small LPG operator of a gas distri- (1) The service line does not (IM) bution pipeline must follow the re- operate at a pressure of 10 psig or quirements in §192.1015 of this greater throughout the year; subpart. (2) The operator has prior ex- §192.1001 What definitions ap- perience with contaminants in the ply to this subpart? gas stream that could interfere with §192.1005 What must a gas dis- the EFV's operation or cause loss The following definitions ap- tribution operator (other than a of service to a residence; ply to this subpart: master meter or small LPG oper- (3) An EFV could interfere Excavation Damage means ator) do to implement this sub- with necessary operation or mainte- any impact that results in the need part? nance activities, such as blowing to repair or replace an underground liquids from the line; or facility due to a weakening, or the No later than August 2, 2011 a (4) An EFV meeting perfor- partial or complete destruction, of gas distribution operator must de- mance standards in §192.381 is not the facility, including, but not lim- velop and implement an integrity commercially available to the oper- ited to, the protective coating, later- management program that includes ator. al support, cathodic protection or a written integrity management (c) Reporting. Each operator the housing for the line device or plan as specified in §192.1007. must, on an annual basis, report the facility. number of EFVs installed pursuant Hazardous Leak means a leak to this section as part of the annual that represents an existing or prob- §192.1007 What are the required report required by §191.11. able hazard to persons or property elements of an integrity manage- and requires immediate repair or ment plan? ■ 3. In Part 192, a new subpart P is continuous action until the condi- added to read as follows: tions are no longer hazardous. A written integrity manage- Integrity Management Plan or ment plan must contain procedures Subpart P–Gas Distribution Pipe- IM Plan means a written explana- for developing and implementing line Integrity Management (IM) tion of the mechanisms or proce- the following elements: dures the operator will use to im- (a) Knowledge. An operator Sec. plement its integrity management must demonstrate an understanding 192.1001 What definitions apply to program and to ensure compliance of its gas distribution system devel- this subpart? with this subpart. oped from reasonably available in- 192.1003 What do the regulations Integrity Management Pro- formation. in this subpart cover? gram or IM Program means an (1) Identify the characteristics 192.1005 What must a gas distribu- overall approach by an operator to of the pipeline's design and operation operator (other than a ensure the integrity of its gas distri- tions and the environmental factors master meter or small LPG op- bution system. that are necessary to assess the ap- erator) do to implement this Small LPG Operator means an plicable threats and risks to its gas subpart? operator of a liquefied petroleum distribution pipeline. 192.1007 What are the required el- gas (LPG) distribution pipeline that (2) Consider the information ements of an integrity manage- serves fewer than 100 customers gained from past design, opera- ment plan? from a single source. tions, and maintenance. 192.1009 What must an operator (3) Identify additional infor- report when compression cou- mation needed and provide a plan plings fail? §192.1003 What do the regula- for gaining that information over 192.1011 What records must an op- tions in this subpart cover? time through normal activities con- erator keep? ducted on the pipeline (for exam- 192.1013 When may an operator General. This subpart pre- ple, design, construction, opera- deviate from required periodic scribes minimum requirements for tions or maintenance activities). inspections of this part? an IM program for any gas distri- (4) Develop and implement a 192.1015 What must a master me- bution pipeline covered under this process by which the IM program ter or small liquefied petrole- part, including liquefied petroleum will be reviewed periodically and um gas (LPG) operator do to gas systems. A gas distribution op- refined and improved as needed. implement this subpart? erator, other than a master meter (5) Provide for the capture and operator or a small LPG operator, retention of data on any new pipe- must follow the requirements in line installed. The data must in- Sec. §192.1005-192.1013 of this clude, at a minimum, the location

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 40/42 192-113 192-113 where the new pipeline is installed (1) Develop and monitor per- by §191.11. An operator also must and the material of which it is con- formance measures from an estab- report the four measures to the state structed. lished baseline to evaluate the ef- pipeline safety authority if a state (b) Identify threats. The opera- fectiveness of its IM program. An exercises jurisdiction over the oper- tor must consider the following cat- operator must consider the results ator's pipeline. egories of threats to each gas distri- of its performance monitoring in bution pipeline: Corrosion, natural periodically re-evaluating the forces, excavation damage, other threats and risks. These perfor- §192.1009 What must an opera- outside force damage, material, mance measures must include the tor report when compression weld or joint failure (including following: couplings fail? compression coupling), equipment (i) Number of hazardous leaks failure, incorrect operation, and either eliminated or repaired as re- Each operator must report, on other concerns that could threaten quired by §192.703(c) of this sub- an annual basis, information related the integrity of its pipeline. An op- chapter (or total number of leaks if to failure of compression cou- erator must consider reasonably all leaks are repaired when found), plings, excluding those that result available information to identify categorized by cause; only in non-hazardous leaks, as existing and potential threats. (ii) Number of excavation part of the annual report required Sources of data may include, but damages; by §191.11 beginning with the re- are not limited to, incident and leak (iii) Number of excavation port submitted March 15, 2011. history, corrosion control records, tickets (receipt of information by This information must include, at a continuing surveillance records, pa- the underground facility operator minimum, location of the failure in trolling records, maintenance histo- from the notification center); the system, nominal pipe size, mary, and excavation damage experi- (iv) Total number of leaks ei- terial type, nature of failure includ- ence. ther eliminated or repaired, catego- ing any contribution of local pipe- (c) Evaluate and rank risk. An rized by cause; line environment, coupling manu- operator must evaluate the risks as- (v) Number of hazardous leaks facturer, lot number and date of sociated with its distribution pipe- either eliminated or repaired as re- manufacture, and other information line. In this evaluation, the operator quired by §192.703(c) (or total that can be found in markings on must determine the relative impor- number of leaks if all leaks are re- the failed coupling. An operator tance of each threat and estimate paired when found), categorized by also must report this information to and rank the risks posed to its pipe- material; and the state pipeline safety authority if line. This evaluation must consider (vi) Any additional measures a state exercises jurisdiction over each applicable current and poten- the operator determines are needed the operator's pipeline. tial threat, the likelihood of failure to evaluate the effectiveness of the associated with each threat, and the operator's IM program in control- potential consequences of such a ling each identified threat. §192.1011 What records must an failure. An operator may subdivide (f) Periodic Evaluation and operator keep? its pipeline into regions with simi- Improvement. An operator must re- lar characteristics (e.g., contiguous evaluate threats and risks on its en- An operator must maintain areas within a distribution pipeline tire pipeline and consider the rele- records demonstrating compliance consisting of mains, services and vance of threats in one location to with the requirements of this sub- other appurtenances; areas with other areas. Each operator must depart for at least 10 years. The common materials or environmen- termine the appropriate period for records must include copies of su- tal factors), and for which similar conducting complete program eval- perseded integrity management actions likely would be effective in uations based on the complexity of plans developed under this subpart. reducing risk. its system and changes in factors (d) Identify and implement affecting the risk of failure. An op- measures to address risks. Deter- erator must conduct a complete §192.1013 When may an opera- mine and implement measures de- program re-evaluation at least ev- tor deviate from required period- signed to reduce the risks from fail- ery five years. The operator must ic inspections under this part? ure of its gas distribution pipeline. consider the results of the perfor- These measures must include an ef- mance monitoring in these evalua- (a) An operator may propose fective leak management program tions. to reduce the frequency of periodic (unless all leaks are repaired when (g) Report results. Report, on inspections and tests required in found). an annual basis, the four measures this part on the basis of the engi- (e) Measure performance, listed in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) neering analysis and risk assess- monitor results, and evaluate effec- through (e)(1)(iv) of this section, as ment required by this subpart. tiveness. part of the annual report required

(b) An operator must submit (2) Identify threats. The opera- Cynthia L. Quarterman, its proposal to the PHMSA Asso- tor must consider, at minimum, the Administrator. ciate Administrator for Pipeline following categories of threats (ex- [FR Doc. E9-28467 Filed 12-3-09; 8:45 am] Safety or, in the case of an in- isting and potential): Corrosion, BILLING CODE 4910-60-P trastate pipeline facility regulated natural forces, excavation damage, by the State, the appropriate State other outside force damage, materi- agency. The applicable oversight al or weld failure, equipment fail- agency may accept the proposal on ure, and incorrect operation. its own authority, with or without (3) Rank risks. The operator conditions and limitations, on a must evaluate the risks to its pipe- showing that the operator's propos- line and estimate the relative im- al, which includes the adjusted in- portance of each identified threat. terval, will provide an equal or (4) Identify and implement greater overall level of safety. measures to mitigate risks. The op- (c) An operator may imple- erator must determine and implement an approved reduction in the ment measures designed to reduce frequency of a periodic inspection the risks from failure of its pipe- or test only where the operator has line. developed and implemented an in- (5) Measure performance, tegrity management program that monitor results, and evaluate effec- provides an equal or improved tiveness. The operator must moni- overall level of safety despite the tor, as a performance measure, the reduced frequency of periodic in- number of leaks eliminated or re- spections. paired on its pipeline and their causes. (6) Periodic evaluation and §192.1015 What must a master improvement. The operator must meter or small liquefied petrole- determine the appropriate period um gas (LPG) operator do to im- for conducting IM program evalua- plement this subpart? tions based on the complexity of its pipeline and changes in factors af- (a) General. No later than Au- fecting the risk of failure. An oper- gust 2, 2011 the operator of a mas- ator must re-evaluate its entire pro- ter meter system or a small LPG gram at least every five years. The operator must develop and imple- operator must consider the results ment an IM program that includes a of the performance monitoring in written IM plan as specified in these evaluations. paragraph (b) of this section. The (c) Records. The operator must IM program for these pipelines maintain, for a period of at least 10 should reflect the relative simplici- years, the following records: ty of these types of pipelines. (1) A written IM plan in accor- (b) Elements. A written in- dance with this section, including tegrity management plan must ad- superseded IM plans; dress, at a minimum, the following (2) Documents supporting elements: threat identification; and (1) Knowledge. The operator (3) Documents showing the lo- must demonstrate knowledge of its cation and material of all piping pipeline, which, to the extent and appurtenances that are installed known, should include the approxi- after the effective date of the opera- mate location and material of its tor's IM program and, to the extent pipeline. The operator must identi- known, the location and material of fy additional information needed all pipe and appurtenances that and provide a plan for gaining were existing on the effective date knowledge over time through nor- of the operator's program. mal activities conducted on the pipeline (for example, design, con- Issued in Washington, DC on struction, operations or mainte- November 20, 2009 under Authori- nance activities). ty delegated in Part 1.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2008 Pages 63905 - 63936 42/42 192-113